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 User Interviews |  Agile Example Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 teams derive needs only from assumptions and real motives are missing, user interviews give direct access to behavior and meaning. Conversations from the target group's everyday life make patterns, tensions, and open questions solidly visible. | When a story carries business rules and exceptions, it brings clarity before implementation. It makes examples, open questions, and boundaries visible enough that the logic becomes jointly sound. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 60-90 min pro Feature | 30–60 min per interview | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 3-6 | 1 participant per interview | 3-7 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Example Map, Acceptance Criteria, Open Questions |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | Behavior-Driven DevelopmentRequirementsExamplesRefinement |