Compare

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 Mapping ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)Assumption Mapping Affinity Diagramming

Criterion	UX Research Empathy Mapping	Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)	Product Discovery Assumption Mapping	UX Research Affinity Diagramming
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.	ARID examines how well developers can work with a technical design. It focuses on a part of the system that can still be revised, between the architecture overview and the detailed specification.	When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first.	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.
Complexitydifferent	Low	Medium	Medium	Low
Timedifferent	30–60 min	2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional	45-60 min	45–90 min
Participantsdifferent	4-8	Designers, developers as users, and facilitation	2-8	3-10
Formatdifferent	Workshop	Workshop + async	Workshop + async	Workshop
Outputdifferent	Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps	Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions	Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking	Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas
Tagsno overlap	SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop	ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks	AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation	SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause

Add more methods