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 |  Agile Acceptance Criteria Workshop |  Agile Specification by Example |
|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | When business rules need to become precise, it ties language, example, and test together. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as an Example Table and Acceptance Tests. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 20-40 min pro Story | 60-90 min pro Feature |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 3-6 | 3-6 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Acceptance Criteria, Story Update | Example Table, Acceptance Tests |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | AgileRequirementsRefinementBehavior-Driven Development | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
