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 Thinking |  Product Discovery Concierge MVP |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  UX Research User Interviews |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | For complex user problems with an uncertain cause, the method connects observation, interpretation, and experiment into a learning cycle. It keeps the focus on real needs and avoids premature solution language. This produces robust decisions for product and service. | 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 lot is assumed about a target group but little is seen jointly, empathy mapping makes knowledge and gaps directly comparable. The picture also shows which assumptions hold up and where evidence is missing. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1 Tag bis mehrere Wochen | 1-4 Wochen | 30–60 min | 30–60 min per interview |
Participantsdifferent | 4-10 | 3-10 Kunden | 4-8 | 1 participant per interview |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Problem Statement, Prototype, Test Learnings | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary |
Tagsno overlap | InnovationPrototypeResearch | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery |