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 |  Decision Making Constraint Analysis |  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. | When an initiative stalls, the limit often lies not in the idea but in hard or soft boundary conditions. Constraint Analysis separates these limits and shows which of them can actually be shaped. | 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 | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 1-3 Tage | 30-90 min | 60-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | Internes Team | 2-8 | 4-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Constraint List, Hard/Soft Classification, Option Impact Notes, Decision Boundaries | Problem Cluster, Prioritized Challenge, Experiment |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | ConstraintsDecisionPlanningOptions | FacilitationDecisionProblem solvingWorkshop |