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 |  UX Research Empathy 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 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 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 | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 30-60 min | 30–60 min | 20-40 min pro Story |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 3-7 | 4-8 | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Example Map, Acceptance Criteria, Open Questions | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Acceptance Criteria, Story Update |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | Behavior-Driven DevelopmentRequirementsExamplesRefinement | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | AgileRequirementsRefinementBehavior-Driven Development |