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 Empathy Mapping |  UX Research Personas |  Agile Acceptance Criteria Workshop |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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 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 story needs clear checkpoints before implementation, it sharpens expectation and scope together. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as Acceptance Criteria and a Story Update. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 60-90 min pro Feature | 30–60 min | 1-3 Tage | 20-40 min pro Story |
Participantsdifferent | 3-6 | 4-8 | Internes Team | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Acceptance Criteria, Story Update |
Tagsno overlap | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | AgileRequirementsRefinementBehavior-Driven Development |