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 |  Operations Root Cause Tree Analysis |  UX Research User Interviews |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | For a problem with several suspected causes, the method builds a causal structure instead of a mere list. It makes visible how causes connect and where the strongest points of leverage lie. | When teams derive needs only from assumptions and real motives are missing, user interviews give direct access to behavior and meaning. Conversations from the target group's everyday life make patterns, tensions, and open questions solidly visible. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 1-3 Tage | 1-3 h | 30–60 min per interview |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | Internes Team | 2-8 | 1 participant per interview |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Cause Tree, Evidence Notes, Countermeasures | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | Root causeTreeIncidentQuality | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery |