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 |  Agile Three Amigos |  Innovation Design Charrette |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 story, test, and implementation could drift apart, it brings business perspective, engineering, and quality together early. It prevents a story from being read differently only late in the process. | In a tightly timed design process with many participants, the method pools several lines of thinking in a short time. It brings parallel design energy without letting the discussion tip into endless coordination. This quickly produces solid directions for architecture or space. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 30-60 min | 15-30 min | Halber Tag bis mehrere Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 3-7 | 3 | 10-50 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Example Map, Acceptance Criteria, Open Questions | Clarified Story, Test Examples, Open Questions | Sketches and Concepts, Consolidated Solution Sketch, Prioritized Direction |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | Behavior-Driven DevelopmentRequirementsExamplesRefinement | CollaborationBehavior-Driven DevelopmentQualityRefinement | BrainstormingWorkshopCollaborationIdeation |