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 Design Charrette |  UX Research User Interviews |
|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | Halber Tag bis mehrere Tage | 30–60 min per interview |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 10-50 | 1 participant per interview |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Sketches and Concepts, Consolidated Solution Sketch, Prioritized Direction | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | BrainstormingWorkshopCollaborationIdeation | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
