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 Opportunity Interview |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  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. | When opportunities are still hidden behind signals of need, it structures conversations around needs and obstacles. It looks for patterns that lead to new product opportunities. | 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. | 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 | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 30-60 min je Interview | 45–90 min | 1-3 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 5-12 Interviews | 3-10 | Internes Team |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Interview Notes, Opportunity Themes, Customer Quotes | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | DiscoveryInterviewsOpportunityCustomer | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | ResearchCustomerSynthesis |