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 |  Product Discovery Concierge MVP |  Knowledge Modeling Knowledge Mapping |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | Knowledge Mapping makes knowledge, gaps, and transfer paths visible across a field. It fits when expertise should not just exist but also be findable and transferable. | When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. |
Complexitysame | Medium | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30-60 min je Interview | 1-4 Wochen | 1-3 h | 45-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 5-12 Interviews | 3-10 Kunden | 3-12 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Opportunity Themes, Customer Quotes | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks | Knowledge Map, Critical Knowledge Areas, Transfer Plan | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking |
Tagsno overlap | DiscoveryInterviewsOpportunityCustomer | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery | KnowledgeMappingRisk | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation |