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 Problem Interview |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  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 picture of the problem still needs to become solid, it asks about real situations and consequences. It separates genuine suffering from mere interest in a solution. | An ADR permanently records an architecture decision with context, trade-offs, and consequence. It creates continuity for later changes because the decision path stays traceable. | 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 | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-4 Wochen | 30-60 min je Interview | 15-45 min | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 Kunden | 5-12 Interviews | 1-3 | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks | Problem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer Segments | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery | DiscoveryInterviewsValidation | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |