View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Product Strategy Lean Canvas |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  UX Research User Interviews |  Domain Modeling EventStorming |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When an early product bet still has too many open points, it brings target group, problem, and assumptions into a single view. It condenses the idea so core risks become nameable. | 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. | When a domain consists of many events, rules, and states, it creates a shared modeling space for the team. It bundles language, flows, and boundaries before domain knowledge fragments into siloed views. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 30–60 min | 30–60 min per interview | 2-8 h |
Participantsdifferent | 1-6 | 4-8 | 1 participant per interview | 5-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Lean Canvas, Core Assumptions, Experiment Backlog | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Event Timeline, Ubiquitous Language, Boundaries, Open Questions |
Tagsno overlap | StartupLeanAssumptionsBusiness model | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | Domain-Driven DesignEventsDiscoveryWorkshop |