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 |  Architecture Risk Storming |  Agile Specification by Example |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | When business rules need to become precise, it ties language, example, and test together. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as an Example Table and Acceptance Tests. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 30-60 min | 60-90 min | 60-90 min pro Feature |
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 | Annotated Diagram, Prioritized Risk List, Action Backlog | Example Table, Acceptance Tests |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | Behavior-Driven DevelopmentRequirementsExamplesRefinement | RiskArchitectureWorkshopValidation | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development |