methodatlas
Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Criterion
Paper illustration of two user profile cards with a goal, behavior evidence, and an open research question.
UX Research
Personas
Paper illustration of a participant using a prototype while an observer takes notes beside a highlighted usability issue.
UX Research
Usability Testing
Paper illustration for Problem Interview
Product Discovery
Problem Interview
Paper illustration for Concierge MVP
Product Discovery
Concierge MVP
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 product is built but people get stuck on tasks, usability testing shows the friction at concrete points. Observed use instead of self-report makes visible where orientation, understanding, or interaction breaks down.When the picture of the problem still needs to become solid, it asks about real situations and consequences. It separates genuine suffering from mere interest in a solution.When an idea can first fail or grow through genuine hands-on support, it relies on manual work instead of automation. It shows whether user value holds up even under manual execution.
Complexitysame
MediumMediumMediumMedium
Timedifferent
1-3 Tage1-2 h je Session30-60 min je Interview1-4 Wochen
Participantsdifferent
Internes TeamBased on research question5-12 Interviews3-10 Kunden
Formatsame
Workshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + async
Outputdifferent
Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario NotesUsability Issues, Severity List, RecommendationsProblem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer SegmentsConcierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks
Tagsno overlap
ResearchCustomerSynthesis
ValidationUXPrototype
DiscoveryInterviewsValidation
MVPValidationServiceDiscovery
Add more methods