Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Selected:Opportunity Interview ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)MVP Test Matrix Fake Door Test

Criterion	Product Discovery Opportunity Interview	Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)	Product Discovery MVP Test Matrix	Product Discovery Fake Door Test
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.	ARID examines how well developers can work with a technical design. It focuses on a part of the system that can still be revised, between the architecture overview and the detailed specification.	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.	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.
Complexitysame	Medium	Medium	Medium	Medium
Timedifferent	30-60 min je Interview	2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional	45-75 min	1-5 Tage
Participantsdifferent	5-12 Interviews	Designers, developers as users, and facilitation	2-8	Nutzertraffic
Formatdifferent	Workshop + async	Workshop + async	Workshop	Async
Outputdifferent	Interview Notes, Opportunity Themes, Customer Quotes	Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions	Test Matrix, Test Plan	Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision
Tagsno overlap	DiscoveryInterviewsOpportunityCustomer	ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks	ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryOptions	ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery

Add more methods