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 Decision Matrix |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  UX Research Personas |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 several options collide with several criteria, comparison quickly becomes subjective. A Decision Matrix makes the trade-off visible and brings weighting, criteria, and options into a shared logic. | 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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 45-90 min | 45–90 min | 1-3 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 2-8 | 3-10 | Internes Team |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Decision Matrix, Scoring Rationale, Selected Option | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | DecisionCriteriaScoringTradeoffs | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | ResearchCustomerSynthesis |