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 Opportunity Scoring |  Facilitation Dot Voting |  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 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 a workshop has produced too many options and the group needs to condense quickly, dot voting makes preferences visible in a short time. It bundles individual votes into a solid signal for the next selection. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30-60 min je Interview | 60-120 min | 5-15 min | 1-2 h Setup, laufend |
Participantsdifferent | 5-12 Interviews | 3-6 | 3-20 | 2-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Opportunity Themes, Customer Quotes | Opportunity Score Table, Top Outcomes | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Opportunity Solution Tree, Experiment Backlog, Learning Log |
Tagsno overlap | DiscoveryInterviewsOpportunityCustomer | PrioritizationDiscoveryOutcomesNeeds | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | DiscoveryOutcomesExperimentsOpportunity |