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 Eisenhower Matrix |  UX Research User Interviews |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  UX Research Personas |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | It separates true priorities from noise so it becomes clear what should be done now, scheduled, delegated, or dropped. | 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 | Low | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 15-30 min | 30–60 min per interview | 30–60 min | 1-3 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 1-6 | 1 participant per interview | 4-8 | Internes Team |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Eisenhower Matrix, Action List, Delegation Notes | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes |
Tagsno overlap | PrioritizationFocusTasks | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | ResearchCustomerSynthesis |