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 User Interviews |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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 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 assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 60-90 min | 30–60 min per interview | 45–90 min | 45-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 | 1 participant per interview | 3-10 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Annotated Diagram, Prioritized Risk List, Action Backlog | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking |
Tagsno overlap | RiskArchitectureWorkshopValidation | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation |