View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  UX Research User Interviews |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When statements, evidence, and counterarguments get mixed up, a debate quickly loses its structure. Argument Mapping breaks a thesis down into its reasoning and makes visible what it really rests on. | 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 assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. | 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 | Medium | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 30–60 min per interview | 45-60 min | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 1 participant per interview | 2-8 | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | SensemakingDecisionRationale | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |