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 User Interviews |  Agile Acceptance Criteria Workshop |  UX Research Personas |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 60-90 min pro Feature | 30–60 min per interview | 20-40 min pro Story | 1-3 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 3-6 | 1 participant per interview | 3-6 | Internes Team |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Acceptance Criteria, Story Update | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes |
Tagsno overlap | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | AgileRequirementsRefinementBehavior-Driven Development | ResearchCustomerSynthesis |