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 |  Facilitation Dot Voting |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|
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 a workshop has produced too many options and the group needs to condense quickly, dot voting makes preferences visible in a short time. It bundles individual votes into a solid signal for the next selection. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 5-15 min | 30–60 min |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 3-20 | 4-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
