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 |  Product Discovery Problem Interview |  Innovation Design Sprint |  Product Discovery Concierge MVP |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | When the product question is unclear and time pressure is high, the method takes a team from an open idea to a testable solution. It connects problem understanding, decision, and learning in one compact format, lowering the risk of spending a lot of energy on a mere guess. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 60-120 min | 30-60 min je Interview | 4-5 Tage | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 3-6 | 5-12 Interviews | 5-8 | 3-10 Kunden |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Opportunity Score Table, Top Outcomes | Problem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer Segments | Prototype, Test Findings, Decision Rationale | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks |
Tagsno overlap | PrioritizationDiscoveryOutcomesNeeds | DiscoveryInterviewsValidation | Design sprintPrototypeValidationInnovation | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery |