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 Three Amigos |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  UX Research User Interviews |  Innovation Design Charrette |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When story, test, and implementation could drift apart, it brings business perspective, engineering, and quality together early. It prevents a story from being read differently only late in the process. | 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 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. | In a tightly timed design process with many participants, the method pools several lines of thinking in a short time. It brings parallel design energy without letting the discussion tip into endless coordination. This quickly produces solid directions for architecture or space. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 15-30 min | 30–60 min | 30–60 min per interview | Halber Tag bis mehrere Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 3 | 4-8 | 1 participant per interview | 10-50 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Clarified Story, Test Examples, Open Questions | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Sketches and Concepts, Consolidated Solution Sketch, Prioritized Direction |
Tagsno overlap | CollaborationBehavior-Driven DevelopmentQualityRefinement | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | BrainstormingWorkshopCollaborationIdeation |