View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Facilitation Expectation Mapping |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  UX Research Personas |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When roles, interfaces, or projects fail because of differing expectations, Expectation Mapping surfaces these differences. It shows what each side takes for granted and where the pictures diverge. | 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. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 45–90 min | 1-3 Tage | 30–60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 3-10 | Internes Team | 4-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps |
Tagsno overlap | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop |