View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Innovation Contradiction Analysis |  Product Discovery Concierge MVP |  Product Discovery Problem Interview |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a system should improve while another measure suffers as a result, the method makes the underlying conflict precisely formulable. It separates the desired effect from its side effect. This makes solutions possible that address the contradiction deliberately instead of half-heartedly. | 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. | 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 | Medium | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 60-120 min | 1-4 Wochen | 30-60 min je Interview | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | 3-10 Kunden | 5-12 Interviews | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Contradiction Statement, Abstraction Notes, Solution Principles, Concept Ideas | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks | Problem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer Segments | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | ContradictionsInnovationProblem solving | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery | DiscoveryInterviewsValidation | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |