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 Surveys |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs) |  UX Research Personas |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 research notes, feedback, or observations sit unconnected side by side, affinity diagramming sorts the raw material into solid themes. Many individual points turn into patterns that make decisions and opportunities clearer. | ARID examines how well developers can work with a technical design. It focuses on a part of the system that can still be revised, between the architecture overview and the detailed specification. | 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 | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 3-14 Tage | 45–90 min | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional | 1-3 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 50+ | 3-10 | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation | Internes Team |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Survey Results, Charts, Segment Insights | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes |
Tagsno overlap | QuantitativeResearchValidation | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks | ResearchCustomerSynthesis |