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 |  Operations Fault Tree 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. | For a critical top event with several possible triggers, the method logically models failure paths. It makes visible which combinations of conditions can lead to 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 | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 2-6 h | 30–60 min |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 3-8 | 4-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Fault Tree, Critical Paths, Cause Hypotheses, Control Actions | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | RiskRoot causeSafety | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
