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 |  Product Discovery Jobs to Be Done |  Product Discovery Opportunity Scoring |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 switching motives and progress are unclear, it reconstructs the situation from real customer circumstances. It shows why a switch happens and what kind of progress is being sought. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 30–60 min | 1-3 Wochen | 60-120 min |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 4-8 | 5-12 Interviews | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Job Stories, Outcome Statements, Opportunity List | Opportunity Score Table, Top Outcomes |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | CustomerOutcomesNeeds | PrioritizationDiscoveryOutcomesNeeds |