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 |  UX Design Service Blueprinting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | When a service experience is spread across several touchpoints, it brings frontstage and backstage together. It shows where user contact and internal responsibility must fit. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 2-4 h | 2-4 h | 0.5-2 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 4-10 | 5-15 | 6-12 |
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 | Service Blueprint, Fail Points, Ownership Map |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | JourneyServiceService design | RequirementsArchitectureWorkshop | Service designOperationsJourneyBlueprint |