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 Affinity Diagramming |  Agile Example Mapping |  Architecture Quality Attribute Workshop |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | When a story carries business rules and exceptions, it brings clarity before implementation. It makes examples, open questions, and boundaries visible enough that the logic becomes jointly sound. | A Quality Attribute Workshop translates quality requirements into concrete scenarios and architecture impulses. The method brings product, engineering, and operations to the same view of desired properties. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 45–90 min | 30-60 min | 2-4 h | 30–60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 3-7 | 5-15 | 4-8 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Example Map, Acceptance Criteria, Open Questions | Quality Scenarios, Priority List, Architecture Concerns | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | Behavior-Driven DevelopmentRequirementsExamplesRefinement | RequirementsArchitectureWorkshop | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop |