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 Tree Testing |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Domain Modeling EventStorming |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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 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 a domain consists of many events, rules, and states, it creates a shared modeling space for the team. It bundles language, flows, and boundaries before domain knowledge fragments into siloed views. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 1-2 Tage | 30–60 min | 2-8 h |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | Based on research question | 4-8 | 5-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Findability Metrics, Path Analysis, Revised IA | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Event Timeline, Ubiquitous Language, Boundaries, Open Questions |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | Information architectureNavigationFindability | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | Domain-Driven DesignEventsDiscoveryWorkshop |