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 Kano Model |  Product Discovery Concierge MVP |  Product Discovery Opportunity Interview |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When features need to be distinguished by their effect on satisfaction, it makes expectations and surprises comparable. It separates basic needs, performance contribution, and delight. | 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 opportunities are still hidden behind signals of need, it structures conversations around needs and obstacles. It looks for patterns that lead to new product opportunities. | 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. |
Complexitysame | Medium | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-2 Tage | 1-4 Wochen | 30-60 min je Interview | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 10-50 | 3-10 Kunden | 5-12 Interviews | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Kano Matrix, Feature Classes, Priority Themes | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks | Interview Notes, Opportunity Themes, Customer Quotes | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | SatisfactionPrioritizationCustomer | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery | DiscoveryInterviewsOpportunityCustomer | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |