View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Product Discovery Opportunity Interview |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  UX Research User Interviews |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | An ADR permanently records an architecture decision with context, trade-offs, and consequence. It creates continuity for later changes because the decision path stays traceable. | 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. | 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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 15-45 min | 30-60 min je Interview | 30–60 min | 30–60 min per interview |
Participantsdifferent | 1-3 | 5-12 Interviews | 4-8 | 1 participant per interview |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Interview Notes, Opportunity Themes, Customer Quotes | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | DiscoveryInterviewsOpportunityCustomer | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery |