View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Knowledge Modeling Concept Mapping |  Product Discovery Opportunity Solution Tree |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | Concept Mapping arranges terms and relationships in a network that makes subject-matter connections tangible. It fits when a topic needs to be understood structurally rather than linearly. | When discovery keeps swinging between goals, ideas, and learning loops, it creates clear steering logic. It connects the desired outcome, opportunities, and experiments into a legible structure. | When a lot is assumed about a target group but little is seen jointly, empathy mapping makes knowledge and gaps directly comparable. The picture also shows which assumptions hold up and where evidence is missing. | 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 | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 1-2 h Setup, laufend | 30–60 min | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 2-6 | 4-8 | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Concept Map, Relationship Labels, Knowledge Gaps | Opportunity Solution Tree, Experiment Backlog, Learning Log | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | KnowledgeConceptsMappingSensemaking | DiscoveryOutcomesExperimentsOpportunity | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |