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 Tree Testing |  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 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 navigation exists but search paths still fail, tree testing checks findability without visual distraction. The method shows whether labels, levels, and paths really lead to the intended destination. | 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 | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 30-60 min je Interview | 1-2 Tage | 1-3 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 5-12 Interviews | Based on research question | Internes Team |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Interview Notes, Opportunity Themes, Customer Quotes | Findability Metrics, Path Analysis, Revised IA | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | DiscoveryInterviewsOpportunityCustomer | Information architectureNavigationFindability | ResearchCustomerSynthesis |