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 of two people facing each other, speech bubbles and an open interview notebook.
UX Research
User Interviews
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 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 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.
Complexitydifferent
MediumLowMediumMedium
Timedifferent
1-4 Wochen30–60 min per interview30-60 min je Interview1-5 Tage
Participantsdifferent
3-10 Kunden1 participant per interview5-12 InterviewsNutzertraffic
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncAsync
Outputdifferent
Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP RisksInterview Notes, Themes, Insight SummaryProblem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer SegmentsClick Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision
Tags1 shared
MVPValidationServiceDiscovery
QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery
DiscoveryInterviewsValidation
ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery
Add more methods