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 |  Domain Modeling Context Map |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 several contexts need to talk to each other, it makes their relationships and dependencies legible. It helps sort integration pressure and responsibilities across system boundaries. | When research notes, feedback, or observations sit unconnected side by side, affinity diagramming sorts the raw material into solid themes. Many individual points turn into patterns that make decisions and opportunities clearer. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 30–60 min | 1-3 h | 45–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 4-8 | 2-8 | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Context Map, Integration Patterns, Boundary Notes | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | Domain-Driven DesignBoundariesStrategy | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause |