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 |  Knowledge Modeling Knowledge Mapping |  UX Research User Interviews |  Knowledge Modeling Concept Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | Knowledge Mapping makes knowledge, gaps, and transfer paths visible across a field. It fits when expertise should not just exist but also be findable and transferable. | 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. | Concept Mapping arranges terms and relationships in a network that makes subject-matter connections tangible. It fits when a topic needs to be understood structurally rather than linearly. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 1-3 h | 30–60 min per interview | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 3-12 | 1 participant per interview | 1-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Knowledge Map, Critical Knowledge Areas, Transfer Plan | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Concept Map, Relationship Labels, Knowledge Gaps |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | KnowledgeMappingRisk | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | KnowledgeConceptsMappingSensemaking |