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 Opportunity Interview |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Product Discovery Opportunity Solution Tree |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 opportunities are still hidden behind signals of need, it structures conversations around needs and obstacles. It looks for patterns that lead to new product opportunities. | 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. | When discovery keeps swinging between goals, ideas, and learning loops, it creates clear steering logic. It connects the desired outcome, opportunities, and experiments into a legible structure. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 30-60 min je Interview | 45–90 min | 1-2 h Setup, laufend |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 5-12 Interviews | 3-10 | 2-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Interview Notes, Opportunity Themes, Customer Quotes | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Opportunity Solution Tree, Experiment Backlog, Learning Log |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | DiscoveryInterviewsOpportunityCustomer | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | DiscoveryOutcomesExperimentsOpportunity |