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 |  Architecture Risk Storming |  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. | 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 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 | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30-60 min je Interview | 60-90 min | 30–60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 5-12 Interviews | 4-12 | 4-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Problem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer Segments | Annotated Diagram, Prioritized Risk List, Action Backlog | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps |
Tagsno overlap | DiscoveryInterviewsValidation | RiskArchitectureWorkshopValidation | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
