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 Opportunity Solution Tree |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |  Product Discovery MVP Test Matrix |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 discovery keeps swinging between goals, ideas, and learning loops, it creates clear steering logic. It connects the desired outcome, opportunities, and experiments into a legible structure. | 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 | Low | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 1-2 h Setup, laufend | 1-5 Tage | 45-75 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 2-6 | Nutzertraffic | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Opportunity Solution Tree, Experiment Backlog, Learning Log | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision | Test Matrix, Test Plan |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | DiscoveryOutcomesExperimentsOpportunity | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryOptions |