View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Product Discovery Solution Interview |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Innovation Design Thinking |  UX Research Personas |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a solution idea is already on the table, it checks how it is understood and evaluated. It looks for resonance, objections, and missing fit early in the conversation. | 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. | For complex user problems with an uncertain cause, the method connects observation, interpretation, and experiment into a learning cycle. It keeps the focus on real needs and avoids premature solution language. This produces robust decisions for product and service. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30-60 min je Interview | 30–60 min | 1 Tag bis mehrere Wochen | 1-3 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 5-10 Interviews | 4-8 | 4-10 | Internes Team |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Solution Feedback, Objection List, Validation Notes | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Problem Statement, Prototype, Test Learnings | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes |
Tagsno overlap | ValidationInterviewsPrototype | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | InnovationPrototypeResearch | ResearchCustomerSynthesis |