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 Fake Door Test |  Product Discovery Concierge MVP |  Product Discovery MVP Test Matrix |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitysame | Medium | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30-60 min je Interview | 1-5 Tage | 1-4 Wochen | 45-75 min |
Participantsdifferent | 5-12 Interviews | Nutzertraffic | 3-10 Kunden | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Opportunity Themes, Customer Quotes | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks | Test Matrix, Test Plan |
Tags1 shared | DiscoveryInterviewsOpportunityCustomer | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryOptions |