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 User Interviews |  Architecture SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method) |
|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | SAAM helps teams judge an architecture’s suitability for selected tasks and changes. It is particularly useful for examining modifiability and comparing architecture alternatives with clear reasoning. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 30–60 min per interview | Preparation, scenario analysis, and findings review; effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 1 participant per interview | Architecture experts and stakeholders for scenarios and weighting |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Domain functions mapped to components and connections, Quality attributes and evaluation criteria, Typical tasks and their effects on the architecture, Reasoned evaluation or comparison of alternatives |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | ArchitectureChangeAnalysisComparisonQuality |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
