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 |  Knowledge Modeling IBIS |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Decision Making Argument 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. | IBIS structures thinking about complex questions as a sequence of issues, ideas, and arguments. The method keeps discussions open without forcing them into premature consensus. | 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 statements, evidence, and counterarguments get mixed up, a debate quickly loses its structure. Argument Mapping breaks a thesis down into its reasoning and makes visible what it really rests on. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 1-3 h | 30–60 min | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 2-8 | 4-8 | 1-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Issue Map, Positions, Argument Notes | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | RationaleKnowledgeDecision | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | SensemakingDecisionRationale |