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 Contextual Inquiry |  Innovation Brainstorming |
|---|---|---|---|
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 work processes are known only from accounts and the real context stays hidden, Contextual Inquiry makes behavior at the workplace visible. Observation and follow-up questions together show how people actually work, get interrupted, and improvise. | When a team faces an open question with many obvious directions, the method first creates breadth instead of premature commitment. It separates idea flow from evaluation and makes lines of thought visible, creating a pool for selection and further development. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 1-3 Wochen | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 4-12 Beobachtungen | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Field Notes, Workflow Insights, Pain Points | Idea pool, Theme clusters, Shortlist |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | UX researchObservationContext | BrainstormingIdeationCreativityWorkshopDivergence |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
