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 Tree Testing |  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 a navigation exists but search paths still fail, tree testing checks findability without visual distraction. The method shows whether labels, levels, and paths really lead to the intended destination. | 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. |
Complexitysame | Medium | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 30-60 min je Interview | 1-2 Tage | 1-2 h Setup, laufend |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 5-12 Interviews | Based on research question | 2-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Interview Notes, Opportunity Themes, Customer Quotes | Findability Metrics, Path Analysis, Revised IA | Opportunity Solution Tree, Experiment Backlog, Learning Log |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | DiscoveryInterviewsOpportunityCustomer | Information architectureNavigationFindability | DiscoveryOutcomesExperimentsOpportunity |