View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Product Discovery Opportunity Scoring |  Product Discovery Kano Model |  UX Research User Interviews |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When research notes, feedback, or observations sit unconnected side by side, affinity diagramming sorts the raw material into solid themes. Many individual points turn into patterns that make decisions and opportunities clearer. | When opportunities need ranking by their effect, it makes importance and satisfaction directly comparable. It separates problem, assumption, solution, and evidence. The result is captured as an opportunity-score table and top outcomes. | When features need to be distinguished by their effect on satisfaction, it makes expectations and surprises comparable. It separates basic needs, performance contribution, and delight. | When teams derive needs only from assumptions and real motives are missing, user interviews give direct access to behavior and meaning. Conversations from the target group's everyday life make patterns, tensions, and open questions solidly visible. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 45–90 min | 60-120 min | 1-2 Tage | 30–60 min per interview |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 3-6 | 10-50 | 1 participant per interview |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Opportunity Score Table, Top Outcomes | Kano Matrix, Feature Classes, Priority Themes | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | PrioritizationDiscoveryOutcomesNeeds | SatisfactionPrioritizationCustomer | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery |