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 Solution Tree |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Product Discovery Opportunity Interview |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 discovery keeps swinging between goals, ideas, and learning loops, it creates clear steering logic. It connects the desired outcome, opportunities, and experiments into a legible structure. | 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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 1-2 h Setup, laufend | 30–60 min | 30-60 min je Interview |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 2-6 | 4-8 | 5-12 Interviews |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Opportunity Solution Tree, Experiment Backlog, Learning Log | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Interview Notes, Opportunity Themes, Customer Quotes |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | DiscoveryOutcomesExperimentsOpportunity | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | DiscoveryInterviewsOpportunityCustomer |