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 |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Engineering Golden Path |  Architecture Quality Attribute 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. | An ADR permanently records an architecture decision with context, trade-offs, and consequence. It creates continuity for later changes because the decision path stays traceable. | When teams need a reliable default path for frequent use, sprawl quickly emerges without any guiding logic. Golden Path bundles the preferred path so good practice becomes easy and deviation becomes deliberate. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 15-45 min | 1-3 Tage Setup, laufend | 2-4 h |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 1-3 | 2-8 | 5-15 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Golden Path Guide, Templates, Quality Checks | Quality Scenarios, Priority List, Architecture Concerns |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | EngineeringProductivityGovernance | RequirementsArchitectureWorkshop |