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 |  Operations Fault Tree Analysis |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  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. | For a critical top event with several possible triggers, the method logically models failure paths. It makes visible which combinations of conditions can lead to damage. | 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 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 | High | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 2-6 h | 30–60 min | 1-3 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 3-8 | 4-8 | Internes Team |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Fault Tree, Critical Paths, Cause Hypotheses, Control Actions | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | RiskRoot causeSafety | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | ResearchCustomerSynthesis |