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 Solution Interview |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |  Product Discovery MVP Test Matrix |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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 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 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. |
Complexitysame | Medium | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-2 Tage | 30-60 min je Interview | 1-5 Tage | 45-75 min |
Participantsdifferent | 10-50 | 5-10 Interviews | Nutzertraffic | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Kano Matrix, Feature Classes, Priority Themes | Solution Feedback, Objection List, Validation Notes | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision | Test Matrix, Test Plan |
Tagsno overlap | SatisfactionPrioritizationCustomer | ValidationInterviewsPrototype | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryOptions |