View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Facilitation Dot Voting |  UX Research Personas |  Product Discovery Kano Model |  UX Research User Interviews |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a workshop has produced too many options and the group needs to condense quickly, dot voting makes preferences visible in a short time. It bundles individual votes into a solid signal for the next selection. | 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 features need to be distinguished by their effect on satisfaction, it makes expectations and surprises comparable. It separates basic needs, performance contribution, and delight. | 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 | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 5-15 min | 1-3 Tage | 1-2 Tage | 30–60 min per interview |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 | Internes Team | 10-50 | 1 participant per interview |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Kano Matrix, Feature Classes, Priority Themes | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | SatisfactionPrioritizationCustomer | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery |