View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Architecture Quality Attribute Workshop |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  UX Research User Interviews |  UX Research Personas |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | A Quality Attribute Workshop translates quality requirements into concrete scenarios and architecture impulses. The method brings product, engineering, and operations to the same view of desired properties. | 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 teams derive needs only from assumptions and real motives are missing, user interviews give direct access to behavior and meaning. Conversations from the target group's everyday life make patterns, tensions, and open questions solidly visible. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2-4 h | 30–60 min | 30–60 min per interview | 1-3 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 5-15 | 4-8 | 1 participant per interview | Internes Team |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Quality Scenarios, Priority List, Architecture Concerns | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes |
Tagsno overlap | RequirementsArchitectureWorkshop | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | ResearchCustomerSynthesis |