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 Tree Testing |  Innovation Design Sprint |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a navigation exists but search paths still fail, tree testing checks findability without visual distraction. The method shows whether labels, levels, and paths really lead to the intended destination. | When the product question is unclear and time pressure is high, the method takes a team from an open idea to a testable solution. It connects problem understanding, decision, and learning in one compact format, lowering the risk of spending a lot of energy on a mere guess. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-2 Tage | 4-5 Tage | 30–60 min | 45–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | Based on research question | 5-8 | 4-8 | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Findability Metrics, Path Analysis, Revised IA | Prototype, Test Findings, Decision Rationale | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas |
Tagsno overlap | Information architectureNavigationFindability | Design sprintPrototypeValidationInnovation | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause |