View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  UX Research User Interviews |  UX Research Personas |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When statements, evidence, and counterarguments get mixed up, a debate quickly loses its structure. Argument Mapping breaks a thesis down into its reasoning and makes visible what it really rests on. | 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. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 30–60 min per interview | 1-3 Tage | 45–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 1 participant per interview | Internes Team | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas |
Tagsno overlap | SensemakingDecisionRationale | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause |