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 |  Domain Modeling EventStorming |  Product Discovery Opportunity Interview |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 domain consists of many events, rules, and states, it creates a shared modeling space for the team. It bundles language, flows, and boundaries before domain knowledge fragments into siloed views. | When opportunities are still hidden behind signals of need, it structures conversations around needs and obstacles. It looks for patterns that lead to new product opportunities. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 1-3 Tage | 2-8 h | 30-60 min je Interview |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | Internes Team | 5-12 | 5-12 Interviews |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Event Timeline, Ubiquitous Language, Boundaries, Open Questions | Interview Notes, Opportunity Themes, Customer Quotes |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | Domain-Driven DesignEventsDiscoveryWorkshop | DiscoveryInterviewsOpportunityCustomer |