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 Request for Comments |  Architecture C4 Model |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | An RFC clarifies architecture context, options, and consequences. It structures technical context, alternatives, tradeoffs, open questions, and review feedback, and captures the result as an RFC document, reviewer comments, and a decision rationale. | The C4 Model makes a system legible across several resolution levels, from context down to code. It suits situations where different audiences need to understand the same architecture from different altitudes. | When research notes, feedback, or observations sit unconnected side by side, affinity diagramming sorts the raw material into solid themes. Many individual points turn into patterns that make decisions and opportunities clearer. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 1-4 h | 45–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 3-20 Reviewer | 1-5 | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Context Diagram, Container Diagram, Component Diagram | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ArchitectureCommunicationVisualization | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause |