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 |  UX Research Personas |  Facilitation Mind Mapping |  Innovation Brainwriting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | When a topic is still unclear and too many thoughts surface at once, Mind Mapping creates an open surface for ordering them. It makes connections, subtopics, and starting points visible without fixing them too early. | When loud voices or hierarchy distort the idea search, the method creates a quiet entry into joint development. It gives everyone thinking space and gathers contributions without social brakes, making diversity more visible and easier to build on. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 1-3 Tage | 15-45 min | 15-30 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | Internes Team | 1-10 | 3-12 |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Mind Map, Topic Clusters, Open Questions | Idea sheets, Expanded concepts, Prioritized list |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | BrainstormingIdeasMappingStructureFacilitation | BrainstormingCollaborationInclusionIdeas |