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 Pretotyping |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | Pretotyping clarifies whether a customer problem and solution idea create enough real demand. It separates problem, assumption, solution, and evidence, and captures the result as a pretotyping sketch, test setup, and conversion data. | ATAM helps teams weigh architecture decisions when quality goals compete. The team considers business goals, stakeholder expectations, and technical decisions together. The evaluation shows which risks need further investigation. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | Stunden bis wenige Tage | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 1-4 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Pretotyping sketch, Test setup, Conversion data, Go or no-go decision | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | ValidationDemandMVP | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
