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 Dot Voting |  Product Discovery Opportunity Interview |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 a workshop has produced too many options and the group needs to condense quickly, dot voting makes preferences visible in a short time. It bundles individual votes into a solid signal for the next selection. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-2 Tage | 30–60 min per interview | 5-15 min | 30-60 min je Interview |
Participantsdifferent | 10-50 | 1 participant per interview | 3-20 | 5-12 Interviews |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Kano Matrix, Feature Classes, Priority Themes | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Interview Notes, Opportunity Themes, Customer Quotes |
Tagsno overlap | SatisfactionPrioritizationCustomer | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | DiscoveryInterviewsOpportunityCustomer |