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 Empathy Mapping |  Innovation Design Thinking |  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 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 | 3-14 Tage | 30–60 min | 1 Tag bis mehrere Wochen | 1-3 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 50+ | 4-8 | 4-10 | Internes Team |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Survey Results, Charts, Segment Insights | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Problem Statement, Prototype, Test Learnings | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes |
Tagsno overlap | QuantitativeResearchValidation | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | InnovationPrototypeResearch | ResearchCustomerSynthesis |