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 Concierge MVP ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)Fake Door Test

Criterion	Product Discovery Opportunity Interview	Product Discovery Concierge MVP	Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)	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.	When an idea can first fail or grow through genuine hands-on support, it relies on manual work instead of automation. It shows whether user value holds up even under manual execution.	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 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	1-4 Wochen	2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional	1-5 Tage
Participantsdifferent	5-12 Interviews	3-10 Kunden	Designers, developers as users, and facilitation	Nutzertraffic
Formatdifferent	Workshop + async	Workshop + async	Workshop + async	Async
Outputdifferent	Interview Notes, Opportunity Themes, Customer Quotes	Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks	Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions	Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision
Tagsno overlap	DiscoveryInterviewsOpportunityCustomer	MVPValidationServiceDiscovery	ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks	ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery

Add more methods