View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Agile Acceptance Criteria Workshop |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Agile Specification by Example |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a story needs clear checkpoints before implementation, it sharpens expectation and scope together. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as Acceptance Criteria and a Story Update. | 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 business rules need to become precise, it ties language, example, and test together. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as an Example Table and Acceptance Tests. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 20-40 min pro Story | 30–60 min | 60-90 min pro Feature |
Participantsdifferent | 3-6 | 4-8 | 3-6 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Acceptance Criteria, Story Update | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Example Table, Acceptance Tests |
Tagsno overlap | AgileRequirementsRefinementBehavior-Driven Development | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
