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 Knowledge Mapping |  UX Research User Interviews |  Knowledge Modeling Concept 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. | Knowledge Mapping makes knowledge, gaps, and transfer paths visible across a field. It fits when expertise should not just exist but also be findable and transferable. | 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. | Concept Mapping arranges terms and relationships in a network that makes subject-matter connections tangible. It fits when a topic needs to be understood structurally rather than linearly. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 1-3 h | 30–60 min per interview | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 3-12 | 1 participant per interview | 1-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Knowledge Map, Critical Knowledge Areas, Transfer Plan | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Concept Map, Relationship Labels, Knowledge Gaps |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | KnowledgeMappingRisk | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | KnowledgeConceptsMappingSensemaking |