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 User Interviews |  Facilitation 1-2-4-All |  Innovation Brainstorming |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 many people in a group too rarely get to speak, 1-2-4-All distributes thinking time more fairly. The format builds participation step by step and makes quiet or still-unformed thoughts usable faster. | When a team faces an open question with many obvious directions, the method first creates breadth instead of premature commitment. It separates idea flow from evaluation and makes lines of thought visible, creating a pool for selection and further development. |
Complexitysame | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 10-20 min | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 4-100+ | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Idea List, Shared Insights, Emergent Themes | Idea pool, Theme clusters, Shortlist |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | FacilitationInclusionIdeation | BrainstormingIdeationCreativityWorkshopDivergence |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
