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 User Interviews |  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 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 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. |
Complexitysame | Low | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 15-45 min | 30–60 min per interview | 30–60 min | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-10 | 1 participant per interview | 4-8 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Mind Map, Topic Clusters, Open Questions | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Idea pool, Theme clusters, Shortlist |
Tagsno overlap | BrainstormingIdeasMappingStructureFacilitation | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | BrainstormingIdeationCreativityWorkshopDivergence |