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 |  UX Research Personas |  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 target groups stay too vague and teams talk about the same people differently, personas create a shared, solid picture of usage. Condensed profiles make needs, contexts, and differences tangible enough for decisions. | 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 | 2-4 h |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 1-3 | Internes Team | 5-15 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Quality Scenarios, Priority List, Architecture Concerns |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | RequirementsArchitectureWorkshop |