View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Product Discovery Problem Interview |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 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. | When the picture of the problem still needs to become solid, it asks about real situations and consequences. It separates genuine suffering from mere interest in a solution. | When demand is still unclear, it measures interest in a feature before it is built. It separates real behavior from polite agreement and deliberately keeps build effort small. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 45–90 min | 30-60 min je Interview | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 3-10 | 5-12 Interviews | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Problem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer Segments | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | DiscoveryInterviewsValidation | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |