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 |  Innovation Design Sprint |  Product Discovery Jobs to Be Done |  Product Discovery Opportunity Scoring |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 the product question is unclear and time pressure is high, the method takes a team from an open idea to a testable solution. It connects problem understanding, decision, and learning in one compact format, lowering the risk of spending a lot of energy on a mere guess. | When switching motives and progress are unclear, it reconstructs the situation from real customer circumstances. It shows why a switch happens and what kind of progress is being sought. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 4-5 Tage | 1-3 Wochen | 60-120 min |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 5-8 | 5-12 Interviews | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Prototype, Test Findings, Decision Rationale | Job Stories, Outcome Statements, Opportunity List | Opportunity Score Table, Top Outcomes |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | Design sprintPrototypeValidationInnovation | CustomerOutcomesNeeds | PrioritizationDiscoveryOutcomesNeeds |