View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Innovation Design Thinking |  Product Discovery Opportunity Interview |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  UX Research Personas |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | For complex user problems with an uncertain cause, the method connects observation, interpretation, and experiment into a learning cycle. It keeps the focus on real needs and avoids premature solution language. This produces robust decisions for product and service. | When opportunities are still hidden behind signals of need, it structures conversations around needs and obstacles. It looks for patterns that lead to new product opportunities. | 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 | High | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1 Tag bis mehrere Wochen | 30-60 min je Interview | 30–60 min | 1-3 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 4-10 | 5-12 Interviews | 4-8 | Internes Team |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Problem Statement, Prototype, Test Learnings | Interview Notes, Opportunity Themes, Customer Quotes | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes |
Tagsno overlap | InnovationPrototypeResearch | DiscoveryInterviewsOpportunityCustomer | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | ResearchCustomerSynthesis |