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 |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |  Product Discovery MVP Test Matrix |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | When several minimal variants compete to answer the same question, it makes comparing and choosing between them cleaner. It separates problem, assumption, solution, and evidence. The result is captured as a Test Matrix and a Test Plan. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-4 Wochen | 30–60 min | 1-5 Tage | 45-75 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 Kunden | 4-8 | Nutzertraffic | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision | Test Matrix, Test Plan |
Tagsno overlap | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryOptions |