View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Product Discovery Problem Interview |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Architecture Risk Storming |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When the picture of the problem still needs to become solid, it asks about real situations and consequences. It separates genuine suffering from mere interest in a solution. | 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. | Helps clarify architecture context, options, and consequences in concrete terms. It organizes technical context, alternatives, and consequences. The result is captured as an Annotated Diagram, a Prioritized Risk List, and an Action Backlog. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30-60 min je Interview | 30–60 min | 60-90 min | 45–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 5-12 Interviews | 4-8 | 4-12 | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Problem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer Segments | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Annotated Diagram, Prioritized Risk List, Action Backlog | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas |
Tagsno overlap | DiscoveryInterviewsValidation | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | RiskArchitectureWorkshopValidation | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause |