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 |  Innovation Brainstorming |  Agile Acceptance Criteria Workshop |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 a team faces an open question with many obvious directions, the method first creates breadth instead of premature commitment. It separates idea flow from evaluation and makes lines of thought visible, creating a pool for selection and further development. | When a story needs clear checkpoints before implementation, it sharpens expectation and scope together. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as Acceptance Criteria and a Story Update. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 60-90 min pro Feature | 30-60 min | 20-40 min pro Story |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 3-6 | 4-12 | 3-6 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Idea pool, Theme clusters, Shortlist | Acceptance Criteria, Story Update |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | BrainstormingIdeationCreativityWorkshopDivergence | AgileRequirementsRefinementBehavior-Driven Development |