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 Discovery Opportunity Interview |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  UX Research User Interviews |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When opportunities are still hidden behind signals of need, it structures conversations around needs and obstacles. It looks for patterns that lead to new product opportunities. | An ADR permanently records an architecture decision with context, trade-offs, and consequence. It creates continuity for later changes because the decision path stays traceable. | 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 | Medium | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30-60 min je Interview | 15-45 min | 30–60 min | 30–60 min per interview |
Participantsdifferent | 5-12 Interviews | 1-3 | 4-8 | 1 participant per interview |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Opportunity Themes, Customer Quotes | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary |
Tagsno overlap | DiscoveryInterviewsOpportunityCustomer | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery |