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 |  Innovation Design Thinking |  Domain Modeling EventStorming |  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. | For complex user problems with an uncertain cause, the method connects observation, interpretation, and experiment into a learning cycle. It keeps the focus on real needs and avoids premature solution language. This produces robust decisions for product and service. | When a domain consists of many events, rules, and states, it creates a shared modeling space for the team. It bundles language, flows, and boundaries before domain knowledge fragments into siloed views. | 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 | High | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 1 Tag bis mehrere Wochen | 2-8 h | 45–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 4-10 | 5-12 | 3-10 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Problem Statement, Prototype, Test Learnings | Event Timeline, Ubiquitous Language, Boundaries, Open Questions | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | InnovationPrototypeResearch | Domain-Driven DesignEventsDiscoveryWorkshop | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause |