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 Affinity Diagramming |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |  Product Discovery Concierge MVP |  Product Discovery MVP Test Matrix |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When research notes, feedback, or observations sit unconnected side by side, affinity diagramming sorts the raw material into solid themes. Many individual points turn into patterns that make decisions and opportunities clearer. | When demand is still unclear, it measures interest in a feature before it is built. It separates real behavior from polite agreement and deliberately keeps build effort small. | When an idea can first fail or grow through genuine hands-on support, it relies on manual work instead of automation. It shows whether user value holds up even under manual execution. | When several minimal variants compete to answer the same question, it makes comparing and choosing between them cleaner. It separates problem, assumption, solution, and evidence. The result is captured as a Test Matrix and a Test Plan. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45–90 min | 1-5 Tage | 1-4 Wochen | 45-75 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | Nutzertraffic | 3-10 Kunden | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks | Test Matrix, Test Plan |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryOptions |