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 |  UX Research Empathy 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 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. |
Complexitysame | Low | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 60-90 min | 30–60 min per interview | 45–90 min | 30–60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 | 1 participant per interview | 3-10 | 4-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Annotated Diagram, Prioritized Risk List, Action Backlog | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps |
Tagsno overlap | RiskArchitectureWorkshopValidation | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop |