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 |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Innovation Design Charrette |  Innovation Lotus Blossom |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | In a tightly timed design process with many participants, the method pools several lines of thinking in a short time. It brings parallel design energy without letting the discussion tip into endless coordination. This quickly produces solid directions for architecture or space. | When a central question feels too large, the method breaks it into neighboring topic fields with their own depth of ideation. It holds structure and openness at the same time, so adjacent perspectives don't get lost. This grows an idea space out of a core problem. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-2 Tage | 30–60 min | Halber Tag bis mehrere Tage | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | Based on research question | 4-8 | 10-50 | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Findability Metrics, Path Analysis, Revised IA | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Sketches and Concepts, Consolidated Solution Sketch, Prioritized Direction | Lotus Diagram, Idea Themes, Shortlist |
Tagsno overlap | Information architectureNavigationFindability | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | BrainstormingWorkshopCollaborationIdeation | BrainstormingIdeationCreativityDivergenceWorkshop |