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 Contextual Inquiry |  Product Discovery Context Canvas |  Agile Acceptance Criteria 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. | When work processes are known only from accounts and the real context stays hidden, Contextual Inquiry makes behavior at the workplace visible. Observation and follow-up questions together show how people actually work, get interrupted, and improvise. | When an environment of users, systems, and constraints is hard to grasp, it puts the context compactly on the table. It creates a clear reading of influence, boundary, and dependency. | When a story needs clear checkpoints before implementation, it sharpens expectation and scope together. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as Acceptance Criteria and a Story Update. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 1-3 Wochen | 45-90 min | 20-40 min pro Story |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 4-12 Beobachtungen | 3-10 | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Field Notes, Workflow Insights, Pain Points | Context canvas, Open questions, Shared context notes | Acceptance Criteria, Story Update |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | UX researchObservationContext | ContextFramingRequirementsCanvas | AgileRequirementsRefinementBehavior-Driven Development |