methodatlas
Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Criterion
Paper illustration for Fake Door Test
Product Discovery
Fake Door Test
Paper illustration of two people facing each other, speech bubbles and an open interview notebook.
UX Research
User Interviews
Paper illustration of MVP Test Matrix with a method-specific labelled workspace.
Product Discovery
MVP Test Matrix
Paper illustration for Smoke Test.
Product Discovery
Smoke Test
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.When teams derive needs only from assumptions and real motives are missing, user interviews give direct access to behavior and meaning. Conversations from the target group's everyday life make patterns, tensions, and open questions solidly visible.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.When demand only needs to be roughly verified, it tests interest with minimal effort. It measures whether people would take a next step at all.
Complexitydifferent
MediumLowMediumLow
Timedifferent
1-5 Tage30–60 min per interview45-75 min1-5 Tage
Participantsdifferent
Nutzertraffic1 participant per interview2-8Nutzertraffic
Formatdifferent
AsyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshopAsync
Outputdifferent
Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning DecisionInterview Notes, Themes, Insight SummaryTest Matrix, Test PlanInterest Metrics, Conversion Signal, Learning Note
Tagsno overlap
ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery
QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery
ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryOptions
ValidationExperimentsDemandGrowth
Add more methods