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 |  Innovation Brainstorming |  Innovation Design Charrette |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | In a tightly timed design process with many participants, the method pools several lines of thinking in a short time. It brings parallel design energy without letting the discussion tip into endless coordination. This quickly produces solid directions for architecture or space. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 30–60 min | 30-60 min | Halber Tag bis mehrere Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 4-8 | 4-12 | 10-50 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Idea pool, Theme clusters, Shortlist | Sketches and Concepts, Consolidated Solution Sketch, Prioritized Direction |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | BrainstormingIdeationCreativityWorkshopDivergence | BrainstormingWorkshopCollaborationIdeation |