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 Opportunity Interview |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Product Discovery Opportunity Scoring |  Product Discovery Opportunity Solution Tree |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 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. | When opportunities need ranking by their effect, it makes importance and satisfaction directly comparable. It separates problem, assumption, solution, and evidence. The result is captured as an opportunity-score table and top outcomes. | When discovery keeps swinging between goals, ideas, and learning loops, it creates clear steering logic. It connects the desired outcome, opportunities, and experiments into a legible structure. |
Complexitysame | Medium | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30-60 min je Interview | 1-2 h | 60-120 min | 1-2 h Setup, laufend |
Participantsdifferent | 5-12 Interviews | 4-12 | 3-6 | 2-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Opportunity Themes, Customer Quotes | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Opportunity Score Table, Top Outcomes | Opportunity Solution Tree, Experiment Backlog, Learning Log |
Tagsno overlap | DiscoveryInterviewsOpportunityCustomer | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | PrioritizationDiscoveryOutcomesNeeds | DiscoveryOutcomesExperimentsOpportunity |