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 Decision Matrix |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Decision Making Trade-off Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 several options collide with several criteria, comparison quickly becomes subjective. A Decision Matrix makes the trade-off visible and brings weighting, criteria, and options into a shared logic. | 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. | With limited resources, quality, speed, cost, and risk almost always compete with each other. Trade-off Analysis makes these tensions explicit and prevents decisions from producing hidden side effects. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 45-90 min | 30–60 min | 45-120 min |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 2-8 | 4-8 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Decision Matrix, Scoring Rationale, Selected Option | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Trade-off Matrix, Criteria List, Decision Rationale, Accepted Downsides |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | DecisionCriteriaScoringTradeoffs | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | TradeoffsDecisionCriteriaOptions |