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 Solution Interview |  Product Discovery Wizard of Oz Test |  Product Discovery Concierge MVP |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 a solution idea is already on the table, it checks how it is understood and evaluated. It looks for resonance, objections, and missing fit early in the conversation. | When a new experience would still be too expensive to automate for real, it simulates the outcome behind the scenes. It checks user reaction and value before the technology disappears. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 30-60 min je Interview | 2-10 Tage | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 5-10 Interviews | 5-20 Nutzer | 3-10 Kunden |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Solution Feedback, Objection List, Validation Notes | Prototype Learnings, Manual Effort Notes, Risk List | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | ValidationInterviewsPrototype | PrototypeValidationMVP | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery |