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 Thinking |  Product Discovery Opportunity Scoring |  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. | For complex user problems with an uncertain cause, the method connects observation, interpretation, and experiment into a learning cycle. It keeps the focus on real needs and avoids premature solution language. This produces robust decisions for product and service. | 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. | 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 | High | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 1 Tag bis mehrere Wochen | 60-120 min | 30–60 min per interview |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 4-10 | 3-6 | 1 participant per interview |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Problem Statement, Prototype, Test Learnings | Opportunity Score Table, Top Outcomes | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | InnovationPrototypeResearch | PrioritizationDiscoveryOutcomesNeeds | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery |