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 Empathy Mapping |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Agile Acceptance Criteria Workshop |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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 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 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. |
Complexitysame | Low | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30-60 min | 30–60 min | 45–90 min | 20-40 min pro Story |
Participantsdifferent | 3-7 | 4-8 | 3-10 | 3-6 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Example Map, Acceptance Criteria, Open Questions | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Acceptance Criteria, Story Update |
Tagsno overlap | Behavior-Driven DevelopmentRequirementsExamplesRefinement | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | AgileRequirementsRefinementBehavior-Driven Development |