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 |  Decision Making Decision 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 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. | For decisions with follow-on paths and dependencies, a linear comparison is often not enough. A Decision Tree shows how options branch under conditions and which consequences hang on each branch. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 1-3 Tage | 30-90 min | 30-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | Internes Team | 2-8 | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Constraint List, Hard/Soft Classification, Option Impact Notes, Decision Boundaries | Decision Tree, Option Map, Assumption List |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | ConstraintsDecisionPlanningOptions | DecisionTreeOptions |