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 Failure Mode and Effects Analysis |  UX Design Customer Journey Canvas |  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. | For a process, product, or service with noticeable failure risks, the method assesses possible failure modes in advance. It directs attention to combinations of occurrence, effect, and detectability. | When a journey needs to be understood across several phases, it arranges experience, touchpoints, and opportunities into one picture. It makes gaps and friction along the user path clear. | 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 | High | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 2-6 h | 1-3 h | 45–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 3-10 | 3-10 | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | FMEA Table, Risk Priority, Mitigation Actions | Customer Journey Canvas, Pain Points, Experience Opportunities | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | RiskQualityOperationsRoot cause | JourneyCustomerService designCanvas | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause |