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 |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Innovation Starbursting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | 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. | Helps clarify ideas, open questions, and testable next steps in concrete terms. It opens the thinking space, collects ideas, and leads to testable options. The result is captured as a star-shaped question map, question list, and assumption list. |
Complexitysame | Low | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 45–90 min | 30–60 min | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 3-10 | 4-8 | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Star-Shaped Question Map, Question List, Assumption List |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | BrainstormingIdeationWorkshopDiscovery |