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 |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  Knowledge Modeling IBIS |  UX Research User Interviews |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 statements, evidence, and counterarguments get mixed up, a debate quickly loses its structure. Argument Mapping breaks a thesis down into its reasoning and makes visible what it really rests on. | IBIS structures thinking about complex questions as a sequence of issues, ideas, and arguments. The method keeps discussions open without forcing them into premature consensus. | 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 | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 1-3 h | 1-3 h | 30–60 min per interview |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 1-8 | 2-8 | 1 participant per interview |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Issue Map, Positions, Argument Notes | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | SensemakingDecisionRationale | RationaleKnowledgeDecision | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery |