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 Sprint |  UX Research Surveys |  UX Research Personas |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 the product question is unclear and time pressure is high, the method takes a team from an open idea to a testable solution. It connects problem understanding, decision, and learning in one compact format, lowering the risk of spending a lot of energy on a mere guess. | When a topic needs to be validated broadly and many people can answer the same question, surveys gather structured feedback in a scalable form. Answers become comparable and segmentable instead of remaining merely anecdotal. | When target groups stay too vague and teams talk about the same people differently, personas create a shared, solid picture of usage. Condensed profiles make needs, contexts, and differences tangible enough for decisions. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | High | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 4-5 Tage | 3-14 Tage | 1-3 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 5-8 | 50+ | Internes Team |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Prototype, Test Findings, Decision Rationale | Survey Results, Charts, Segment Insights | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | Design sprintPrototypeValidationInnovation | QuantitativeResearchValidation | ResearchCustomerSynthesis |