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 |  Domain Modeling EventStorming |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 domain consists of many events, rules, and states, it creates a shared modeling space for the team. It bundles language, flows, and boundaries before domain knowledge fragments into siloed views. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30-60 min je Interview | 2-8 h | 45–90 min | 30–60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 5-12 Interviews | 5-12 | 3-10 | 4-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Problem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer Segments | Event Timeline, Ubiquitous Language, Boundaries, Open Questions | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps |
Tagsno overlap | DiscoveryInterviewsValidation | Domain-Driven DesignEventsDiscoveryWorkshop | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop |