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 Design Sprint |  UX Research User Interviews |  Product Discovery Concierge MVP |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When the product question is unclear and time pressure is high, the method takes a team from an open idea to a testable solution. It connects problem understanding, decision, and learning in one compact format, lowering the risk of spending a lot of energy on a mere guess. | 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 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 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 | High | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 4-5 Tage | 30–60 min per interview | 1-4 Wochen | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 5-8 | 1 participant per interview | 3-10 Kunden | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Prototype, Test Findings, Decision Rationale | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | Design sprintPrototypeValidationInnovation | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |