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 Personas |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 60-120 min | 30–60 min per interview | 1-3 Tage | 30–60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-6 | 1 participant per interview | Internes Team | 4-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Opportunity Score Table, Top Outcomes | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps |
Tagsno overlap | PrioritizationDiscoveryOutcomesNeeds | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop |