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 Tree Testing |  Operations 5 Whys |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 navigation exists but search paths still fail, tree testing checks findability without visual distraction. The method shows whether labels, levels, and paths really lead to the intended destination. | For a single, hard-to-explain deviation, the method exposes the causal chain behind the visible symptom. It keeps the cause open until a controllable condition emerges instead of a mere description. | When research notes, feedback, or observations sit unconnected side by side, affinity diagramming sorts the raw material into solid themes. Many individual points turn into patterns that make decisions and opportunities clearer. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 1-2 Tage | 15-30 min | 45–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | Based on research question | 2-6 | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Findability Metrics, Path Analysis, Revised IA | Root cause notes, Countermeasures | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | Information architectureNavigationFindability | Root causeIncidentLeanProblem solving | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause |