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 Risk Storming |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  UX Research User Interviews |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | 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. |
Complexitysame | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 60-90 min | 30–60 min | 30–60 min per interview |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 | 4-8 | 1 participant per interview |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Annotated Diagram, Prioritized Risk List, Action Backlog | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary |
Tagsno overlap | RiskArchitectureWorkshopValidation | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
