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 |  Facilitation Problem Framing Workshop |  UX Research User Interviews |  UX Research Personas |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 a team works on symptoms but the real question stays fuzzy, a Problem Framing Workshop sharpens the view of the right problem. It separates observation, interpretation, and target picture from each other. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 60-120 min | 30–60 min per interview | 1-3 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 4-10 | 1 participant per interview | Internes Team |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Problem Statement, Scope Boundaries, Assumption List, Next Analysis Questions | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | FacilitationAlignmentDiscovery | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | ResearchCustomerSynthesis |