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 |  UX Research User Interviews |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|
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 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 people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-2 Tage | 30–60 min per interview | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 10-50 | 1 participant per interview | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Kano Matrix, Feature Classes, Priority Themes | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions |
Tagsno overlap | SatisfactionPrioritizationCustomer | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
