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 User Interviews |  Innovation Design Sprint |  Product Discovery Concierge MVP |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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 the product question is unclear and time pressure is high, the method takes a team from an open idea to a testable solution. It connects problem understanding, decision, and learning in one compact format, lowering the risk of spending a lot of energy on a mere guess. | When an idea can first fail or grow through genuine hands-on support, it relies on manual work instead of automation. It shows whether user value holds up even under manual execution. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 30–60 min per interview | 4-5 Tage | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 1 participant per interview | 5-8 | 3-10 Kunden |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Prototype, Test Findings, Decision Rationale | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | Design sprintPrototypeValidationInnovation | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery |