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 |  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. | 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 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 | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 1 Tag bis mehrere Wochen | 30–60 min per interview | 1-3 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 4-10 | 1 participant per interview | Internes Team |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Problem Statement, Prototype, Test Learnings | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | InnovationPrototypeResearch | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | ResearchCustomerSynthesis |