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 Design Thinking |
|---|---|---|---|
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 complex user problems with an uncertain cause, the method connects observation, interpretation, and experiment into a learning cycle. It keeps the focus on real needs and avoids premature solution language. This produces robust decisions for product and service. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 30–60 min | 1 Tag bis mehrere Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 4-8 | 4-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Problem Statement, Prototype, Test Learnings |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | InnovationPrototypeResearch |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
