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 |  UX Research User Interviews |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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 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 | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 60-120 min | 30–60 min per interview | 30–60 min | 45–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-6 | 1 participant per interview | 4-8 | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Opportunity Score Table, Top Outcomes | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas |
Tagsno overlap | PrioritizationDiscoveryOutcomesNeeds | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause |