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 |  Product Discovery Opportunity Interview |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 opportunities are still hidden behind signals of need, it structures conversations around needs and obstacles. It looks for patterns that lead to new product opportunities. | 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 research notes, feedback, or observations sit unconnected side by side, affinity diagramming sorts the raw material into solid themes. Many individual points turn into patterns that make decisions and opportunities clearer. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 30-60 min je Interview | 30–60 min | 45–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 5-12 Interviews | 4-8 | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Interview Notes, Opportunity Themes, Customer Quotes | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | DiscoveryInterviewsOpportunityCustomer | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause |