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 |  Business Strategy GAP 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. | GAP Analysis compares the current state with a target picture and makes the distance manageable. It becomes useful when, ahead of new initiatives, it must become clear which capabilities, processes, or resources are missing. | 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 | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 1-3 h | 30–60 min | 1-3 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 2-8 | 4-8 | Internes Team |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Gap Matrix, Action Plan, Risk Notes | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | StrategyAnalysisPlanning | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | ResearchCustomerSynthesis |