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 |  Architecture Quality Attribute Workshop |  Product Discovery Opportunity Interview |  Domain Modeling EventStorming |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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 opportunities are still hidden behind signals of need, it structures conversations around needs and obstacles. It looks for patterns that lead to new product opportunities. | When a domain consists of many events, rules, and states, it creates a shared modeling space for the team. It bundles language, flows, and boundaries before domain knowledge fragments into siloed views. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 2-4 h | 30-60 min je Interview | 2-8 h |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 5-15 | 5-12 Interviews | 5-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Quality Scenarios, Priority List, Architecture Concerns | Interview Notes, Opportunity Themes, Customer Quotes | Event Timeline, Ubiquitous Language, Boundaries, Open Questions |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | RequirementsArchitectureWorkshop | DiscoveryInterviewsOpportunityCustomer | Domain-Driven DesignEventsDiscoveryWorkshop |