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 |  Operations MORT Analysis |  UX Research Personas |  UX Research User Interviews |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 a safety-relevant event or a system with high protection requirements, the method examines where controls failed. It exposes both technical and organizational gaps. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | High | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | Mehrere Tage bis Wochen | 1-3 Tage | 30–60 min per interview |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 2-6 | Internes Team | 1 participant per interview |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | MORT Worksheets, Findings per Branch, Corrective Actions, Systemic Recommendations | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | Root causeSafetySystemicIncident | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery |