View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Empathy MappingArchitecture Decision RecordCustomer Journey MappingQuality Attribute Workshop
| Criterion |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  UX Research Customer Journey Mapping |  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 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. | 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 | 2-4 h | 2-4 h |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 1-3 | 4-10 | 5-15 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Journey Map, Pain-point List, Opportunity Backlog | Quality Scenarios, Priority List, Architecture Concerns |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | JourneyServiceService design | RequirementsArchitectureWorkshop |