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 Three Amigos |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 story, test, and implementation could drift apart, it brings business perspective, engineering, and quality together early. It prevents a story from being read differently only late in the process. | When research notes, feedback, or observations sit unconnected side by side, affinity diagramming sorts the raw material into solid themes. Many individual points turn into patterns that make decisions and opportunities clearer. |
Complexitysame | Low | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 20-40 min pro Story | 30–60 min | 15-30 min | 45–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-6 | 4-8 | 3 | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Acceptance Criteria, Story Update | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Clarified Story, Test Examples, Open Questions | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas |
Tagsno overlap | AgileRequirementsRefinementBehavior-Driven Development | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | CollaborationBehavior-Driven DevelopmentQualityRefinement | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause |