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 Specification by Example |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Agile Example 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 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. | 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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 60-90 min pro Feature | 30–60 min | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | 3-6 | 4-8 | 3-7 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Example Map, Acceptance Criteria, Open Questions |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | Behavior-Driven DevelopmentRequirementsExamplesRefinement |