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 Problem Interview |  Product Discovery Concierge MVP |  Operations A3 Problem Solving |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 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. | For a complex deviation with several people involved, the method bundles problem, analysis, and decision onto one page. It creates a shared working space where causes, countermeasures, and follow-up fit together. | 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 | 1-4 Wochen | 45-90 min | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 5-12 Interviews | 3-10 Kunden | 2-5 | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Problem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer Segments | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks | A3 Report, Action Plan, Root Cause Analysis | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | DiscoveryInterviewsValidation | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery | LeanProblem solvingCoachingOperations | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |