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 |  Agile Specification by Example |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Operations 5 Whys |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 business rules need to become precise, it ties language, example, and test together. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as an Example Table and Acceptance Tests. | 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. | For a single, hard-to-explain deviation, the method exposes the causal chain behind the visible symptom. It keeps the cause open until a controllable condition emerges instead of a mere description. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 60-90 min pro Feature | 45–90 min | 15-30 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 3-6 | 3-10 | 2-6 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Root cause notes, Countermeasures |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | Root causeIncidentLeanProblem solving |