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 Design Charrette |
|---|---|---|---|
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. | In a tightly timed design process with many participants, the method pools several lines of thinking in a short time. It brings parallel design energy without letting the discussion tip into endless coordination. This quickly produces solid directions for architecture or space. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 1-3 Tage | Halber Tag bis mehrere Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | Internes Team | 10-50 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Sketches and Concepts, Consolidated Solution Sketch, Prioritized Direction |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | BrainstormingWorkshopCollaborationIdeation |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
