View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  UX Research User Interviews |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Domain Modeling EventStorming |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | An ADR permanently records an architecture decision with context, trade-offs, and consequence. It creates continuity for later changes because the decision path stays traceable. | When a domain consists of many events, rules, and states, it creates a shared modeling space for the team. It bundles language, flows, and boundaries before domain knowledge fragments into siloed views. | 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 | Low | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 15-45 min | 2-8 h | 30–60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 1-3 | 5-12 | 4-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Event Timeline, Ubiquitous Language, Boundaries, Open Questions | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | Domain-Driven DesignEventsDiscoveryWorkshop | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop |