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 |  Product Discovery Kano Model |  Delivery MoSCoW |  UX Research User Interviews |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 features need to be distinguished by their effect on satisfaction, it makes expectations and surprises comparable. It separates basic needs, performance contribution, and delight. | When a release carries too many demands and priorities are only ever negotiated, MoSCoW creates clear boundaries for the next cut. Must, Should, Could, and Won't make commitment, room for maneuver, and trade-off logic visible to everyone involved. | When teams derive needs only from assumptions and real motives are missing, user interviews give direct access to behavior and meaning. Conversations from the target group's everyday life make patterns, tensions, and open questions solidly visible. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 1-2 Tage | 30-90 min | 30–60 min per interview |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 10-50 | 3-12 | 1 participant per interview |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Kano Matrix, Feature Classes, Priority Themes | Prioritized Backlog, Release Scope, Tradeoff Notes | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | SatisfactionPrioritizationCustomer | PrioritizationScopeDecision | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery |