View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Product Discovery Concierge MVP |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | ATAM helps teams weigh architecture decisions when quality goals compete. The team considers business goals, stakeholder expectations, and technical decisions together. The evaluation shows which risks need further investigation. | 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 | High | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-4 Wochen | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 45-60 min | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 Kunden | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 2-8 | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |