View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  UX Research Personas |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |  UX Research User Interviews |  Product Discovery MVP Test Matrix |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | 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. | When teams derive needs only from assumptions and real motives are missing, user interviews give direct access to behavior and meaning. Conversations from the target group's everyday life make patterns, tensions, and open questions solidly visible. | When several minimal variants compete to answer the same question, it makes comparing and choosing between them cleaner. It separates problem, assumption, solution, and evidence. The result is captured as a Test Matrix and a Test Plan. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 1-5 Tage | 30–60 min per interview | 45-75 min |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | Nutzertraffic | 1 participant per interview | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Test Matrix, Test Plan |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryOptions |