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 | ![]() Innovation Reverse Brainstorming | ![]() Innovation Design Charrette |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 persistent errors or blockages, the method shifts the view to the opposite of the desired effect. It exposes the mechanics of failure and makes hidden causes easier to grasp. This makes improvement more concrete and the problem clearer. | In a tightly timed design process with many participants, the method pools several lines of thinking in a short time. It brings parallel design energy without letting the discussion tip into endless coordination. This quickly produces solid directions for architecture or space. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 1-2 Tage | 30-60 min | Halber Tag bis mehrere Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | Based on research question | 3-12 | 10-50 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Findability Metrics, Path Analysis, Revised IA | Reverse Ideas, Risk Themes, Solution Ideas | Sketches and Concepts, Consolidated Solution Sketch, Prioritized Direction |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | Information architectureNavigationFindability | BrainstormingIdeationCreativityRisk | BrainstormingWorkshopCollaborationIdeation |



