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 Empathy Mapping |  Operations 5 Whys |  Agile Example Mapping |  Agile Acceptance Criteria Workshop |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | For a single, hard-to-explain deviation, the method exposes the causal chain behind the visible symptom. It keeps the cause open until a controllable condition emerges instead of a mere description. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitysame | Low | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 15-30 min | 30-60 min | 20-40 min pro Story |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 2-6 | 3-7 | 3-6 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Root cause notes, Countermeasures | Example Map, Acceptance Criteria, Open Questions | Acceptance Criteria, Story Update |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | Root causeIncidentLeanProblem solving | Behavior-Driven DevelopmentRequirementsExamplesRefinement | AgileRequirementsRefinementBehavior-Driven Development |