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 |  Decision Making Decision Tree |  UX Research User Interviews |  Decision Making Constraint Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | For decisions with follow-on paths and dependencies, a linear comparison is often not enough. A Decision Tree shows how options branch under conditions and which consequences hang on each branch. | 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 an initiative stalls, the limit often lies not in the idea but in hard or soft boundary conditions. Constraint Analysis separates these limits and shows which of them can actually be shaped. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 30-90 min | 30–60 min per interview | 30-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 1-6 | 1 participant per interview | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Decision Tree, Option Map, Assumption List | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Constraint List, Hard/Soft Classification, Option Impact Notes, Decision Boundaries |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | DecisionTreeOptions | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | ConstraintsDecisionPlanningOptions |