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 Tree Testing |  Product Discovery Outcome-Driven Innovation |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 a navigation exists but search paths still fail, tree testing checks findability without visual distraction. The method shows whether labels, levels, and paths really lead to the intended destination. | Outcome-Driven Innovation clarifies customer problems, solution opportunities, and evidence. It separates jobs, desired outcomes, importance, satisfaction, and opportunity, and captures results as desired outcome statements, an opportunity landscape, and segments by underserved needs. | When a lot is assumed about a target group but little is seen jointly, empathy mapping makes knowledge and gaps directly comparable. The picture also shows which assumptions hold up and where evidence is missing. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 45–90 min | 1-2 Tage | Mehrere Wochen | 30–60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | Based on research question | 2-6 researchers plus sample | 4-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Findability Metrics, Path Analysis, Revised IA | Desired outcome statements, Opportunity landscape, Segmentation by underserved needs, Innovation hypotheses | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | Information architectureNavigationFindability | OutcomesInnovationResearchQuantitative | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop |