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 |  UX Research User Interviews |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 60-120 min | 30–60 min per interview | 45–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 3-6 | 1 participant per interview | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Opportunity Score Table, Top Outcomes | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | PrioritizationDiscoveryOutcomesNeeds | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause |