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 |  UX Research Personas |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Product Discovery Problem Interview |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 target groups stay too vague and teams talk about the same people differently, personas create a shared, solid picture of usage. Condensed profiles make needs, contexts, and differences tangible enough for decisions. | An ADR permanently records an architecture decision with context, trade-offs, and consequence. It creates continuity for later changes because the decision path stays traceable. | When the picture of the problem still needs to become solid, it asks about real situations and consequences. It separates genuine suffering from mere interest in a solution. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30-60 min je Interview | 1-3 Tage | 15-45 min | 30-60 min je Interview |
Participantsdifferent | 5-12 Interviews | Internes Team | 1-3 | 5-12 Interviews |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Opportunity Themes, Customer Quotes | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Problem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer Segments |
Tagsno overlap | DiscoveryInterviewsOpportunityCustomer | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | DiscoveryInterviewsValidation |