View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Decision Making Option Framing |  UX Research User Interviews |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | In early decisions, alternatives are often still vague, incomplete, or blended together. Option Framing brings every possibility into a comparable form and makes visible which variant actually fits the question. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-120 min | 30–60 min per interview | 30–60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 1 participant per interview | 4-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Option Frames, Assumption Notes, Comparable Shortlist, Decision Inputs | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps |
Tagsno overlap | OptionsDecision framingStrategyComparison | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
