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 |  UX Research Usability Testing |  Product Discovery Concierge MVP |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 a product is built but people get stuck on tasks, usability testing shows the friction at concrete points. Observed use instead of self-report makes visible where orientation, understanding, or interaction breaks down. | 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 | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1 Tag bis mehrere Wochen | 1-2 h je Session | 1-4 Wochen | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 4-10 | Based on research question | 3-10 Kunden | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Problem Statement, Prototype, Test Learnings | Usability Issues, Severity List, Recommendations | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | InnovationPrototypeResearch | ValidationUXPrototype | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |