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 |  Domain Modeling Bounded Context Canvas |  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. | When a business context is still loosely outlined, it shapes language, responsibility, and integration space. It clarifies what belongs together and where a boundary needs to hold. | 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 | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 1-3 h | 2-8 h | 30–60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 3-8 | 5-12 | 4-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Context Canvas, Glossary, Integration Notes | Event Timeline, Ubiquitous Language, Boundaries, Open Questions | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | Domain-Driven DesignBoundariesModeling | Domain-Driven DesignEventsDiscoveryWorkshop | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop |