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 Mind Mapping |  UX Research Personas |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Innovation Brainstorming |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a topic is still unclear and too many thoughts surface at once, Mind Mapping creates an open surface for ordering them. It makes connections, subtopics, and starting points visible without fixing them too early. | 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. | When a team faces an open question with many obvious directions, the method first creates breadth instead of premature commitment. It separates idea flow from evaluation and makes lines of thought visible, creating a pool for selection and further development. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 15-45 min | 1-3 Tage | 30–60 min | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-10 | Internes Team | 4-8 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Mind Map, Topic Clusters, Open Questions | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Idea pool, Theme clusters, Shortlist |
Tagsno overlap | BrainstormingIdeasMappingStructureFacilitation | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | BrainstormingIdeationCreativityWorkshopDivergence |