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 |  UX Research Personas |  Decision Making Eisenhower Matrix |  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 target groups stay too vague and teams talk about the same people differently, personas create a shared, solid picture of usage. Condensed profiles make needs, contexts, and differences tangible enough for decisions. | It separates true priorities from noise so it becomes clear what should be done now, scheduled, delegated, or dropped. | 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 | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 45–90 min | 1-3 Tage | 15-30 min | 30–60 min per interview |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | Internes Team | 1-6 | 1 participant per interview |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Eisenhower Matrix, Action List, Delegation Notes | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | PrioritizationFocusTasks | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery |