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 Personas |  Agile Specification by Example |
|---|---|---|---|
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 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 business rules need to become precise, it ties language, example, and test together. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as an Example Table and Acceptance Tests. |
Complexitysame | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30-60 min je Interview | 1-3 Tage | 60-90 min pro Feature |
Participantsdifferent | 5-12 Interviews | Internes Team | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Opportunity Themes, Customer Quotes | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Example Table, Acceptance Tests |
Tagsno overlap | DiscoveryInterviewsOpportunityCustomer | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
