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 |  Innovation Design Sprint |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |  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 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 assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. | 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 | Medium | High | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30-60 min je Interview | 4-5 Tage | 45-60 min | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 5-12 Interviews | 5-8 | 2-8 | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Problem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer Segments | Prototype, Test Findings, Decision Rationale | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tags1 shared | DiscoveryInterviewsValidation | Design sprintPrototypeValidationInnovation | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |