View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Product Discovery Concierge MVP |  Product Discovery Problem Interview |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 1-4 Wochen | 30-60 min je Interview | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 3-10 Kunden | 5-12 Interviews | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks | Problem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer Segments | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery | DiscoveryInterviewsValidation | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |