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 |  Agile Specification by Example |  UX Research Personas |  Agile Example 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 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 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 carries business rules and exceptions, it brings clarity before implementation. It makes examples, open questions, and boundaries visible enough that the logic becomes jointly sound. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 60-90 min pro Feature | 1-3 Tage | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 3-6 | Internes Team | 3-7 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Example Map, Acceptance Criteria, Open Questions |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | Behavior-Driven DevelopmentRequirementsExamplesRefinement |