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 |  Product Discovery Kano Model |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Decision Making Pareto Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 features need to be distinguished by their effect on satisfaction, it makes expectations and surprises comparable. It separates basic needs, performance contribution, and delight. | 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. | In many problem situations, effect is distributed unequally across many causes. A Pareto Analysis separates the few drivers with high leverage from the long remainder and focuses attention on what measurably moves the needle. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 1-2 Tage | 45–90 min | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 10-50 | 3-10 | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Kano Matrix, Feature Classes, Priority Themes | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Pareto Chart, Top Causes, Focus List |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | SatisfactionPrioritizationCustomer | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | PrioritizationQualityFocusRoot cause |