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 Personas |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  UX Research User Interviews |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 target groups stay too vague and teams talk about the same people differently, personas create a shared, solid picture of usage. Condensed profiles make needs, contexts, and differences tangible enough for decisions. | 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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30-60 min | 1-3 Tage | 30–60 min | 30–60 min per interview |
Participantsdifferent | 3-7 | Internes Team | 4-8 | 1 participant per interview |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Example Map, Acceptance Criteria, Open Questions | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary |
Tagsno overlap | Behavior-Driven DevelopmentRequirementsExamplesRefinement | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery |