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 |  Innovation Design Sprint |  Innovation Design Thinking |  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. | When the product question is unclear and time pressure is high, the method takes a team from an open idea to a testable solution. It connects problem understanding, decision, and learning in one compact format, lowering the risk of spending a lot of energy on a mere guess. | For complex user problems with an uncertain cause, the method connects observation, interpretation, and experiment into a learning cycle. It keeps the focus on real needs and avoids premature solution language. This produces robust decisions for product and service. | 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 | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-4 Wochen | 4-5 Tage | 1 Tag bis mehrere Wochen | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 Kunden | 5-8 | 4-10 | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks | Prototype, Test Findings, Decision Rationale | Problem Statement, Prototype, Test Learnings | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery | Design sprintPrototypeValidationInnovation | InnovationPrototypeResearch | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |