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 Solution Interview |  Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs) |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a solution idea is already on the table, it checks how it is understood and evaluated. It looks for resonance, objections, and missing fit early in the conversation. | ARID examines how well developers can work with a technical design. It focuses on a part of the system that can still be revised, between the architecture overview and the detailed specification. | 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 | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 30-60 min je Interview | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional | 30–60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 5-10 Interviews | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation | 4-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Solution Feedback, Objection List, Validation Notes | Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps |
Tagsno overlap | ValidationInterviewsPrototype | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
