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 Decision Framing Workshop |  UX Research User Interviews |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  UX Research Personas |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a decision is poorly framed, even good answers deliver little value. A Decision Framing Workshop sharpens the problem, goal, and boundaries before the actual weighing begins. | 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 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 60-120 min | 30–60 min per interview | 30–60 min | 1-3 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 4-10 | 1 participant per interview | 4-8 | Internes Team |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Decision Frame, Decision Question, Criteria List, Evidence Plan | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes |
Tagsno overlap | Decision framingAlignmentCriteriaOptions | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | ResearchCustomerSynthesis |