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 |  Innovation Brainstorming |  Innovation Reverse Brainstorming |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | When a team faces an open question with many obvious directions, the method first creates breadth instead of premature commitment. It separates idea flow from evaluation and makes lines of thought visible, creating a pool for selection and further development. | For persistent errors or blockages, the method shifts the view to the opposite of the desired effect. It exposes the mechanics of failure and makes hidden causes easier to grasp. This makes improvement more concrete and the problem clearer. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 1-3 Tage | 30-60 min | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | Internes Team | 4-12 | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Idea pool, Theme clusters, Shortlist | Reverse Ideas, Risk Themes, Solution Ideas |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | BrainstormingIdeationCreativityWorkshopDivergence | BrainstormingIdeationCreativityRisk |