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 |  Innovation Brainstorming |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Innovation Lotus Blossom |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | 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 a central question feels too large, the method breaks it into neighboring topic fields with their own depth of ideation. It holds structure and openness at the same time, so adjacent perspectives don't get lost. This grows an idea space out of a core problem. |
Complexitysame | Low | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 30-60 min | 30–60 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 4-12 | 4-8 | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Idea pool, Theme clusters, Shortlist | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Lotus Diagram, Idea Themes, Shortlist |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | BrainstormingIdeationCreativityWorkshopDivergence | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | BrainstormingIdeationCreativityDivergenceWorkshop |