View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Agile Specification by Example |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  UX Research Personas |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When business rules need to become precise, it ties language, example, and test together. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as an Example Table and Acceptance Tests. | 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 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. | 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 | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 60-90 min pro Feature | 45–90 min | 1-3 Tage | 30–60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-6 | 3-10 | Internes Team | 4-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps |
Tagsno overlap | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop |