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 User Interviews |  Product Discovery Opportunity Interview |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | When opportunities are still hidden behind signals of need, it structures conversations around needs and obstacles. It looks for patterns that lead to new product opportunities. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 20-45 min | 30–60 min per interview | 30-60 min je Interview |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | Based on research question | 1 participant per interview | 5-12 Interviews |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Content groups, Label set, IA hypotheses | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Interview Notes, Opportunity Themes, Customer Quotes |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | Information architectureNavigationStructure | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | DiscoveryInterviewsOpportunityCustomer |