View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Agile Example Mapping |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Agile Specification by Example |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30-60 min | 45–90 min | 30–60 min | 60-90 min pro Feature |
Participantsdifferent | 3-7 | 3-10 | 4-8 | 3-6 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Example Map, Acceptance Criteria, Open Questions | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Example Table, Acceptance Tests |
Tagsno overlap | Behavior-Driven DevelopmentRequirementsExamplesRefinement | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development |