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 Landing Page Test |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |  Product Discovery Learning Card |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a value proposition first needs to be checked for resonance, it condenses the idea onto a focused entry page. It shows whether language and offering carry interest. | ATAM helps teams weigh architecture decisions when quality goals compete. The team considers business goals, stakeholder expectations, and technical decisions together. The evaluation shows which risks need further investigation. | 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. | The Learning Card connects traceable test results to a reasoned next action while keeping the limits of the insight visible. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-5 Tage | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 1-5 Tage | 25-40 min |
Participantsdifferent | Nutzertraffic | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | Nutzertraffic | 1-5 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Landing Page, Conversion Data, Learning Summary | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision | Learning Card with evidence and next action |
Tagsno overlap | ValidationConversionMarketing | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryLearning |