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 |  Facilitation Responsibility Poker |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  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 it stays unclear who carries responsibility and who only contributes, Responsibility Poker makes the distribution of responsibility explicit. It sharpens the boundaries between weighing in, deciding, and bearing consequences. | When a lot is assumed about a target group but little is seen jointly, empathy mapping makes knowledge and gaps directly comparable. The picture also shows which assumptions hold up and where evidence is missing. | 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 | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 45-90 min | 30–60 min | 45–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 3-10 | 4-8 | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause |