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 Scoring |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Product Discovery Kano Model |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 research notes, feedback, or observations sit unconnected side by side, affinity diagramming sorts the raw material into solid themes. Many individual points turn into patterns that make decisions and opportunities clearer. | When features need to be distinguished by their effect on satisfaction, it makes expectations and surprises comparable. It separates basic needs, performance contribution, and delight. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 60-120 min | 45–90 min | 1-2 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 3-6 | 3-10 | 10-50 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Opportunity Score Table, Top Outcomes | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Kano Matrix, Feature Classes, Priority Themes |
Tagsno overlap | PrioritizationDiscoveryOutcomesNeeds | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | SatisfactionPrioritizationCustomer |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
