View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Decision Making Pre-Mortem |  UX Research User Interviews |  UX Research Personas |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | In early initiatives with many uncertainties, planning quickly turns too optimistic. A pre-mortem makes the expected failure visible in advance and sharpens the view of causes, gaps, and countermeasures. | 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 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 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 | Low | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 20–45 min | 30–60 min per interview | 1-3 Tage | 30–60 min |
Participantsdifferent | Small cross-functional group | 1 participant per interview | Internes Team | 4-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Risk list, Mitigation plan, Assumption log | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps |
Tagsno overlap | RiskDecisionFailurePlanning | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop |