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 Personas |  Product Discovery Opportunity Solution Tree |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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 discovery keeps swinging between goals, ideas, and learning loops, it creates clear steering logic. It connects the desired outcome, opportunities, and experiments into a legible structure. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 30-60 min je Interview | 1-3 Tage | 1-2 h Setup, laufend |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 5-12 Interviews | Internes Team | 2-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Interview Notes, Opportunity Themes, Customer Quotes | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Opportunity Solution Tree, Experiment Backlog, Learning Log |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | DiscoveryInterviewsOpportunityCustomer | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | DiscoveryOutcomesExperimentsOpportunity |