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 Problem Interview |  Knowledge Modeling Concept Mapping |  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 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. | Concept Mapping arranges terms and relationships in a network that makes subject-matter connections tangible. It fits when a topic needs to be understood structurally rather than linearly. | 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 | 30-60 min je Interview | 1-2 h | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 5-12 Interviews | 5-12 Interviews | 1-8 | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Opportunity Themes, Customer Quotes | Problem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer Segments | Concept Map, Relationship Labels, Knowledge Gaps | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | DiscoveryInterviewsOpportunityCustomer | DiscoveryInterviewsValidation | KnowledgeConceptsMappingSensemaking | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |