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 |  Systems Thinking Future Reality Tree |  Domain Modeling EventStorming |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | A Future Reality Tree shows how desired actions are meant to lead to a better system state. The method checks whether a path of change holds together logically before time flows into implementation. | When a domain consists of many events, rules, and states, it creates a shared modeling space for the team. It bundles language, flows, and boundaries before domain knowledge fragments into siloed views. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | High | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 2-4 h | 2-8 h | 30–60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 3-8 | 5-12 | 4-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Future Reality Tree, Negative Branches, Assumption List, Improved Injections | Event Timeline, Ubiquitous Language, Boundaries, Open Questions | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | Theory of ConstraintsSystems thinkingChange | Domain-Driven DesignEventsDiscoveryWorkshop | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop |