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 |  Agile Example Mapping |  Innovation Brainstorming |  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 a story carries business rules and exceptions, it brings clarity before implementation. It makes examples, open questions, and boundaries visible enough that the logic becomes jointly sound. | When a team faces an open question with many obvious directions, the method first creates breadth instead of premature commitment. It separates idea flow from evaluation and makes lines of thought visible, creating a pool for selection and further development. | 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. |
Complexitysame | Low | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 30-60 min | 30-60 min | 20-40 min pro Story |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 3-7 | 4-12 | 3-6 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Example Map, Acceptance Criteria, Open Questions | Idea pool, Theme clusters, Shortlist | Acceptance Criteria, Story Update |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | Behavior-Driven DevelopmentRequirementsExamplesRefinement | BrainstormingIdeationCreativityWorkshopDivergence | AgileRequirementsRefinementBehavior-Driven Development |