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 |  UX Research Customer Journey Mapping |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |
|---|---|---|---|
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 user journey falls apart across many touchpoints, customer journey mapping makes the experience visible as a coherent arc. Phases, emotions, and breaks become legible enough to prioritize critical moments deliberately. | ATAM helps teams weigh architecture decisions when quality goals compete. The team considers business goals, stakeholder expectations, and technical decisions together. The evaluation shows which risks need further investigation. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 45–90 min | 2-4 h | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 4-10 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Journey Map, Pain-point List, Opportunity Backlog | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | JourneyServiceService design | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
