View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Product Discovery MVP Test Matrix |  Product Discovery Learning Card |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | ATAM helps teams weigh architecture decisions when quality goals compete. The team considers business goals, stakeholder expectations, and technical decisions together. The evaluation shows which risks need further investigation. | 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. | The Learning Card connects traceable test results to a reasoned next action while keeping the limits of the insight visible. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-5 Tage | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 45-75 min | 25-40 min |
Participantsdifferent | Nutzertraffic | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 2-8 | 1-5 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Test Matrix, Test Plan | Learning Card with evidence and next action |
Tagsno overlap | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryOptions | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryLearning |