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 |  Product Discovery Experiment Canvas |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Product Discovery Test Card |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 experiments become unreadable after the fact, it arranges hypothesis, signal, and learning goal on a single canvas. It separates problem, assumption, solution, and evidence. The result is captured as a Completed Experiment Canvas and a Success Metric. | 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. | The Test Card turns a critical assumption into a testable claim and specifies in advance which result counts as success. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-4 Wochen | 30-60 min | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 20-35 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 Kunden | 1-5 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 1-5 |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks | Completed Experiment Canvas, Success Metric | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Test Card with a pre-set threshold |
Tagsno overlap | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryHypothesis | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryHypothesis |