View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Product Discovery Context Canvas |  UX Research User Interviews |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Domain Modeling EventStorming |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When an environment of users, systems, and constraints is hard to grasp, it puts the context compactly on the table. It creates a clear reading of influence, boundary, and dependency. | 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. | 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 a domain consists of many events, rules, and states, it creates a shared modeling space for the team. It bundles language, flows, and boundaries before domain knowledge fragments into siloed views. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 30–60 min per interview | 30–60 min | 2-8 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 1 participant per interview | 4-8 | 5-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Context canvas, Open questions, Shared context notes | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Event Timeline, Ubiquitous Language, Boundaries, Open Questions |
Tagsno overlap | ContextFramingRequirementsCanvas | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | Domain-Driven DesignEventsDiscoveryWorkshop |