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 Problem Interview |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |  Product Discovery MVP Test Matrix |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | When several minimal variants compete to answer the same question, it makes comparing and choosing between them cleaner. It separates problem, assumption, solution, and evidence. The result is captured as a Test Matrix and a Test Plan. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1 Tag bis mehrere Wochen | 30-60 min je Interview | 1-5 Tage | 45-75 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-10 | 5-12 Interviews | Nutzertraffic | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Problem Statement, Prototype, Test Learnings | Problem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer Segments | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision | Test Matrix, Test Plan |
Tagsno overlap | InnovationPrototypeResearch | DiscoveryInterviewsValidation | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryOptions |