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 |  Innovation Starbursting |  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. | Helps clarify ideas, open questions, and testable next steps in concrete terms. It opens the thinking space, collects ideas, and leads to testable options. The result is captured as a star-shaped question map, question list, and assumption list. | 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 | 30-60 min | 30–60 min per interview | 1-3 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 3-10 | 1 participant per interview | Internes Team |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Star-Shaped Question Map, Question List, Assumption List | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | BrainstormingIdeationWorkshopDiscovery | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | ResearchCustomerSynthesis |