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 |  Engineering Failure Scenario Analysis |  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. | In critical processes, it is not enough to plan only for the normal case. Failure Scenario Analysis looks at the path into failure and shows which failures, chains, and control gaps cause the most damage. | 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 | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 1-3 h | 30–60 min |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 3-8 | 4-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Failure Scenarios, Risk Notes, Control Gaps, Test and Response Actions | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | FailureResilienceRisk | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
