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 Opportunity Interview |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Product Discovery Opportunity Solution Tree |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When opportunities are still hidden behind signals of need, it structures conversations around needs and obstacles. It looks for patterns that lead to new product opportunities. | 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 discovery keeps swinging between goals, ideas, and learning loops, it creates clear steering logic. It connects the desired outcome, opportunities, and experiments into a legible structure. | 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 | 30-60 min je Interview | 30–60 min | 1-2 h Setup, laufend | 45–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 5-12 Interviews | 4-8 | 2-6 | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Opportunity Themes, Customer Quotes | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Opportunity Solution Tree, Experiment Backlog, Learning Log | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas |
Tagsno overlap | DiscoveryInterviewsOpportunityCustomer | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | DiscoveryOutcomesExperimentsOpportunity | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause |