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 |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 45–90 min | 15-45 min | 30–60 min |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 3-10 | 1-3 | 4-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop |