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 Scoring |  Product Discovery Kano Model |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  UX Research User Interviews |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When opportunities need ranking by their effect, it makes importance and satisfaction directly comparable. It separates problem, assumption, solution, and evidence. The result is captured as an opportunity-score table and top outcomes. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 60-120 min | 1-2 Tage | 30–60 min | 30–60 min per interview |
Participantsdifferent | 3-6 | 10-50 | 4-8 | 1 participant per interview |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Opportunity Score Table, Top Outcomes | Kano Matrix, Feature Classes, Priority Themes | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary |
Tagsno overlap | PrioritizationDiscoveryOutcomesNeeds | SatisfactionPrioritizationCustomer | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery |