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 Scoring |  Product Discovery Opportunity Solution Tree |  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 opportunities need ranking by their effect, it makes importance and satisfaction directly comparable. It separates problem, assumption, solution, and evidence. The result is captured as an opportunity-score table and top outcomes. | 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. | 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 | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 60-120 min | 1-2 h Setup, laufend | 30–60 min per interview |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 3-6 | 2-6 | 1 participant per interview |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Opportunity Score Table, Top Outcomes | Opportunity Solution Tree, Experiment Backlog, Learning Log | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | PrioritizationDiscoveryOutcomesNeeds | DiscoveryOutcomesExperimentsOpportunity | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery |