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 |  Innovation Brainwriting |  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. | When loud voices or hierarchy distort the idea search, the method creates a quiet entry into joint development. It gives everyone thinking space and gathers contributions without social brakes, making diversity more visible and easier to build on. | 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. |
Complexitysame | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 15-30 min | 30–60 min per interview |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 3-12 | 1 participant per interview |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Idea sheets, Expanded concepts, Prioritized list | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | BrainstormingCollaborationInclusionIdeas | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
