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 |  Decision Making Trade-off Analysis |  UX Research User Interviews |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | With limited resources, quality, speed, cost, and risk almost always compete with each other. Trade-off Analysis makes these tensions explicit and prevents decisions from producing hidden side effects. | 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. | Plans often contain assumptions that were never openly stated and remain dangerous precisely because of that. Assumption Surfacing makes these silent premises visible and prioritizes which of them carry the initiative or could sink it. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 45-120 min | 30–60 min per interview | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 2-8 | 1 participant per interview | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Trade-off Matrix, Criteria List, Decision Rationale, Accepted Downsides | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | TradeoffsDecisionCriteriaOptions | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery |