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 Customer Journey Mapping |  Architecture Quality Attribute Workshop |  Architecture Risk Storming |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 user journey falls apart across many touchpoints, customer journey mapping makes the experience visible as a coherent arc. Phases, emotions, and breaks become legible enough to prioritize critical moments deliberately. | A Quality Attribute Workshop translates quality requirements into concrete scenarios and architecture impulses. The method brings product, engineering, and operations to the same view of desired properties. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 2-4 h | 2-4 h | 60-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 4-10 | 5-15 | 4-12 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Journey Map, Pain-point List, Opportunity Backlog | Quality Scenarios, Priority List, Architecture Concerns | Annotated Diagram, Prioritized Risk List, Action Backlog |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | JourneyServiceService design | RequirementsArchitectureWorkshop | RiskArchitectureWorkshopValidation |