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 Example Mapping |  Agile Acceptance Criteria Workshop |
|---|---|---|---|
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 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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 30-60 min | 20-40 min pro Story |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 3-7 | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Example Map, Acceptance Criteria, Open Questions | Acceptance Criteria, Story Update |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | Behavior-Driven DevelopmentRequirementsExamplesRefinement | AgileRequirementsRefinementBehavior-Driven Development |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
