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 |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Architecture Architecture Inception Canvas |  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 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. | The Architecture Inception Canvas bundles the first architecture questions into a compact decision picture. It fits when an initiative is still in motion but still needs clear guardrails. | 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 | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 30–60 min | 1-2 h | 30–60 min per interview |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 4-8 | 3-8 | 1 participant per interview |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Inception Canvas, Risks, Goal List, Open Questions | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | AlignmentArchitectureCanvas | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery |