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 User Interviews |  UX Research Personas |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 teams derive needs only from assumptions and real motives are missing, user interviews give direct access to behavior and meaning. Conversations from the target group's everyday life make patterns, tensions, and open questions solidly visible. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-2 Tage | 30–60 min per interview | 1-3 Tage | 30–60 min |
Participantsdifferent | Based on research question | 1 participant per interview | Internes Team | 4-8 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Findability Metrics, Path Analysis, Revised IA | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps |
Tagsno overlap | Information architectureNavigationFindability | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop |