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 Opportunity Interview |  Product Discovery Concierge MVP |
|---|---|---|---|
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 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 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. |
Complexitysame | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-2 Tage | 30-60 min je Interview | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 10-50 | 5-12 Interviews | 3-10 Kunden |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Kano Matrix, Feature Classes, Priority Themes | Interview Notes, Opportunity Themes, Customer Quotes | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks |
Tagsno overlap | SatisfactionPrioritizationCustomer | DiscoveryInterviewsOpportunityCustomer | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
