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 Personas |  Architecture Quality Attribute Workshop |  Architecture Software Architecture Canvas |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 target groups stay too vague and teams talk about the same people differently, personas create a shared, solid picture of usage. Condensed profiles make needs, contexts, and differences tangible enough for decisions. | 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. | The Software Architecture Canvas reduces a system to the most important architecture decisions, constraints, and interfaces. It is useful when teams need a resilient overall picture quickly. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 1-3 Tage | 2-4 h | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | Internes Team | 5-15 | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Quality Scenarios, Priority List, Architecture Concerns | Architecture Canvas, Goals, Constraints, Quality Attributes |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | RequirementsArchitectureWorkshop | CanvasArchitectureAlignmentWorkshop |