methodatlas
Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Criterion
Paper illustration for Concierge MVP
Product Discovery
Concierge MVP
Paper illustration for Solution Interview
Product Discovery
Solution Interview
Paper illustration for Problem Interview
Product Discovery
Problem Interview
Paper illustration for Fake Door Test
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 a solution idea is already on the table, it checks how it is understood and evaluated. It looks for resonance, objections, and missing fit early in the conversation.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.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.
Complexitysame
MediumMediumMediumMedium
Timedifferent
1-4 Wochen30-60 min je Interview30-60 min je Interview1-5 Tage
Participantsdifferent
3-10 Kunden5-10 Interviews5-12 InterviewsNutzertraffic
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncAsync
Outputdifferent
Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP RisksSolution Feedback, Objection List, Validation NotesProblem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer SegmentsClick Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision
Tags1 shared
MVPValidationServiceDiscovery
ValidationInterviewsPrototype
DiscoveryInterviewsValidation
ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery
Add more methods