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 |  UX Research Surveys |  UX Research User Interviews |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 a topic needs to be validated broadly and many people can answer the same question, surveys gather structured feedback in a scalable form. Answers become comparable and segmentable instead of remaining merely anecdotal. | 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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 3-14 Tage | 30–60 min per interview | 30–60 min |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 50+ | 1 participant per interview | 4-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Survey Results, Charts, Segment Insights | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | QuantitativeResearchValidation | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop |