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 |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  Product Discovery Opportunity Interview |  Knowledge Modeling IBIS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 statements, evidence, and counterarguments get mixed up, a debate quickly loses its structure. Argument Mapping breaks a thesis down into its reasoning and makes visible what it really rests on. | When opportunities are still hidden behind signals of need, it structures conversations around needs and obstacles. It looks for patterns that lead to new product opportunities. | IBIS structures thinking about complex questions as a sequence of issues, ideas, and arguments. The method keeps discussions open without forcing them into premature consensus. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 1-3 h | 30-60 min je Interview | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 1-8 | 5-12 Interviews | 2-8 |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Interview Notes, Opportunity Themes, Customer Quotes | Issue Map, Positions, Argument Notes |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | SensemakingDecisionRationale | DiscoveryInterviewsOpportunityCustomer | RationaleKnowledgeDecision |