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 |  UX Research Card Sorting |  Innovation Brainstorming |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | When content only makes sense internally and users can't find the structure again, card sorting exposes their mental order. Terms, groups, and naming are then aligned with the target group's expectations. | When a team faces an open question with many obvious directions, the method first creates breadth instead of premature commitment. It separates idea flow from evaluation and makes lines of thought visible, creating a pool for selection and further development. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 30–60 min | 20-45 min | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 4-8 | Based on research question | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Content groups, Label set, IA hypotheses | Idea pool, Theme clusters, Shortlist |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | Information architectureNavigationStructure | BrainstormingIdeationCreativityWorkshopDivergence |