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 |  UX Research Personas |
|---|---|---|---|
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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 2-4 h | 1-3 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 5-15 | Internes Team |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Quality Scenarios, Priority List, Architecture Concerns | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | RequirementsArchitectureWorkshop | ResearchCustomerSynthesis |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
