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 Empathy Mapping |  Operations A3 Problem Solving |  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 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. | For a complex deviation with several people involved, the method bundles problem, analysis, and decision onto one page. It creates a shared working space where causes, countermeasures, and follow-up fit together. | 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 | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 30–60 min | 45-90 min | 1-3 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 4-8 | 2-5 | Internes Team |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | A3 Report, Action Plan, Root Cause Analysis | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | LeanProblem solvingCoachingOperations | ResearchCustomerSynthesis |