View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  UX Research Personas |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  UX Research Tree Testing |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 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. | When a navigation exists but search paths still fail, tree testing checks findability without visual distraction. The method shows whether labels, levels, and paths really lead to the intended destination. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 45–90 min | 1-2 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 3-10 | Based on research question |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Findability Metrics, Path Analysis, Revised IA |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | Information architectureNavigationFindability |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
