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 |  UX Research User Interviews |  Domain Modeling EventStorming |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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 a domain consists of many events, rules, and states, it creates a shared modeling space for the team. It bundles language, flows, and boundaries before domain knowledge fragments into siloed views. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | High | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 1 Tag bis mehrere Wochen | 30–60 min per interview | 2-8 h |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 4-10 | 1 participant per interview | 5-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Problem Statement, Prototype, Test Learnings | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Event Timeline, Ubiquitous Language, Boundaries, Open Questions |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | InnovationPrototypeResearch | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | Domain-Driven DesignEventsDiscoveryWorkshop |