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 User Interviews |  Domain Modeling EventStorming |  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 teams derive needs only from assumptions and real motives are missing, user interviews give direct access to behavior and meaning. Conversations from the target group's everyday life make patterns, tensions, and open questions solidly visible. | When a domain consists of many events, rules, and states, it creates a shared modeling space for the team. It bundles language, flows, and boundaries before domain knowledge fragments into siloed views. | 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 | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-4 Wochen | 30–60 min per interview | 2-8 h | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 Kunden | 1 participant per interview | 5-12 | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Event Timeline, Ubiquitous Language, Boundaries, Open Questions | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tags1 shared | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | Domain-Driven DesignEventsDiscoveryWorkshop | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |