View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs) |  Product Discovery Wizard of Oz Test |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |  Product Discovery Concierge MVP |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | ARID examines how well developers can work with a technical design. It focuses on a part of the system that can still be revised, between the architecture overview and the detailed specification. | When a new experience would still be too expensive to automate for real, it simulates the outcome behind the scenes. It checks user reaction and value before the technology disappears. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional | 2-10 Tage | 1-5 Tage | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation | 5-20 Nutzer | Nutzertraffic | 3-10 Kunden |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions | Prototype Learnings, Manual Effort Notes, Risk List | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks |
Tags1 shared | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks | PrototypeValidationMVP | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery |