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 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 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 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 | 30-60 min | 30–60 min | 60-90 min pro Feature |
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 | Example Table, Acceptance Tests |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | Behavior-Driven DevelopmentRequirementsExamplesRefinement | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development |