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 Thinking |  Growth A/B Testing |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 complex user problems with an uncertain cause, the method connects observation, interpretation, and experiment into a learning cycle. It keeps the focus on real needs and avoids premature solution language. This produces robust decisions for product and service. | When two variants compete, discussions quickly decide by taste rather than effect. A/B Testing checks behavior under controlled conditions and separates real improvement from chance or expectation effects. | When research notes, feedback, or observations sit unconnected side by side, affinity diagramming sorts the raw material into solid themes. Many individual points turn into patterns that make decisions and opportunities clearer. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | High | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 1 Tag bis mehrere Wochen | 1-4 Wochen | 45–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 4-10 | 1-6 | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Problem Statement, Prototype, Test Learnings | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | InnovationPrototypeResearch | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause |