View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  UX Research Personas |  Agile Acceptance Criteria Workshop |  UX Research User Interviews |  Agile Specification by Example |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 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. | 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 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 | Medium | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 20-40 min pro Story | 30–60 min per interview | 60-90 min pro Feature |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 3-6 | 1 participant per interview | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Acceptance Criteria, Story Update | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Example Table, Acceptance Tests |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | AgileRequirementsRefinementBehavior-Driven Development | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development |