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 Failure Mode and Effects Analysis |  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 process, product, or service with noticeable failure risks, the method assesses possible failure modes in advance. It directs attention to combinations of occurrence, effect, and detectability. | 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 | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 30–60 min | 2-6 h | 1-3 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 4-8 | 3-10 | Internes Team |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | FMEA Table, Risk Priority, Mitigation Actions | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | RiskQualityOperationsRoot cause | ResearchCustomerSynthesis |