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 |  Architecture Architecture Communication Canvas |  UX Research Personas |  UX Research User Interviews |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | The Architecture Communication Canvas plans architecture communication so the right people receive the right message. The method turns technical complexity into deliberate communication design. | 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 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 | 30–60 min | 60-120 min | 1-3 Tage | 30–60 min per interview |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 2-8 | Internes Team | 1 participant per interview |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Communication Canvas, Stakeholder Messages, Architecture Communication Plan | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | ArchitectureCommunicationStakeholdersCanvas | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery |