View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Product Discovery Kano Model |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Operations A3 Problem Solving |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When features need to be distinguished by their effect on satisfaction, it makes expectations and surprises comparable. It separates basic needs, performance contribution, and delight. | 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. | For a complex deviation with several people involved, the method bundles problem, analysis, and decision onto one page. It creates a shared working space where causes, countermeasures, and follow-up fit together. | 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 | Medium | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-2 Tage | 30–60 min | 45-90 min | 45–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 10-50 | 4-8 | 2-5 | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Kano Matrix, Feature Classes, Priority Themes | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | A3 Report, Action Plan, Root Cause Analysis | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas |
Tagsno overlap | SatisfactionPrioritizationCustomer | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | LeanProblem solvingCoachingOperations | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause |