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 |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Architecture C4 Model |  Architecture Risk Storming |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 research notes, feedback, or observations sit unconnected side by side, affinity diagramming sorts the raw material into solid themes. Many individual points turn into patterns that make decisions and opportunities clearer. | The C4 Model makes a system legible across several resolution levels, from context down to code. It suits situations where different audiences need to understand the same architecture from different altitudes. | Helps clarify architecture context, options, and consequences in concrete terms. It organizes technical context, alternatives, and consequences. The result is captured as an Annotated Diagram, a Prioritized Risk List, and an Action Backlog. |
Complexitysame | Low | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 45–90 min | 1-4 h | 60-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 3-10 | 1-5 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Context Diagram, Container Diagram, Component Diagram | Annotated Diagram, Prioritized Risk List, Action Backlog |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | ArchitectureCommunicationVisualization | RiskArchitectureWorkshopValidation |