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 Sprint |  Innovation Design Thinking |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | High | High |
Timedifferent | 1-2 Tage | 30–60 min | 4-5 Tage | 1 Tag bis mehrere Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | Based on research question | 4-8 | 5-8 | 4-10 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Findability Metrics, Path Analysis, Revised IA | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Prototype, Test Findings, Decision Rationale | Problem Statement, Prototype, Test Learnings |
Tagsno overlap | Information architectureNavigationFindability | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | Design sprintPrototypeValidationInnovation | InnovationPrototypeResearch |