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 |  Innovation Design Charrette |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | In a tightly timed design process with many participants, the method pools several lines of thinking in a short time. It brings parallel design energy without letting the discussion tip into endless coordination. This quickly produces solid directions for architecture or space. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 15-30 min | 30–60 min per interview | Halber Tag bis mehrere Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 3-12 | 1 participant per interview | 10-50 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Idea sheets, Expanded concepts, Prioritized list | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Sketches and Concepts, Consolidated Solution Sketch, Prioritized Direction |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | BrainstormingCollaborationInclusionIdeas | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | BrainstormingWorkshopCollaborationIdeation |