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 |  UX Research Personas |  Operations A3 Problem Solving |  Facilitation Decision Jam |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | For a complex deviation with several people involved, the method bundles problem, analysis, and decision onto one page. It creates a shared working space where causes, countermeasures, and follow-up fit together. | When a decision is stuck, Decision Jam loosens the knot through structured separation of problem, idea, and selection. The format creates movement without jumping prematurely at the first seemingly elegant answer. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 1-3 Tage | 45-90 min | 60-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | Internes Team | 2-5 | 4-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | A3 Report, Action Plan, Root Cause Analysis | Problem Cluster, Prioritized Challenge, Experiment |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | LeanProblem solvingCoachingOperations | FacilitationDecisionProblem solvingWorkshop |