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 |  Growth Hooked Model |  Growth A/B Testing |  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. | The Hooked Model helps clarify engagement loops, user behavior, and experiments. It makes repeat behavior measurable and captures the result as a hooked loop, trigger map, and reward design. | When two variants compete, discussions quickly decide by taste rather than effect. A/B Testing checks behavior under controlled conditions and separates real improvement from chance or expectation effects. | 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 | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-4 Wochen | Multiple workshops over several weeks | 1-4 Wochen | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 Kunden | 2-8 | 1-6 | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks | Hooked loop, Trigger map, Reward design, Ethics check | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery | GrowthBehaviorRetention | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |