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 Card Sorting |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  UX Research Tree Testing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 content only makes sense internally and users can't find the structure again, card sorting exposes their mental order. Terms, groups, and naming are then aligned with the target group's expectations. | 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 a navigation exists but search paths still fail, tree testing checks findability without visual distraction. The method shows whether labels, levels, and paths really lead to the intended destination. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 20-45 min | 45–90 min | 1-2 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | Based on research question | 3-10 | Based on research question |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Content groups, Label set, IA hypotheses | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Findability Metrics, Path Analysis, Revised IA |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | Information architectureNavigationStructure | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | Information architectureNavigationFindability |