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 MVP Test Matrix |  Product Discovery Concierge MVP |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | 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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45–90 min | 45-75 min | 1-4 Wochen | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 2-8 | 3-10 Kunden | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Test Matrix, Test Plan | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryOptions | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |