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 User Interviews |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | High | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | Mehrere Tage bis Wochen | 30–60 min per interview | 45–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 2-6 | 1 participant per interview | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | MORT Worksheets, Findings per Branch, Corrective Actions, Systemic Recommendations | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | Root causeSafetySystemicIncident | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause |