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 |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  UX Research User Interviews |  Product Discovery Concierge MVP |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 a lot is assumed about a target group but little is seen jointly, empathy mapping makes knowledge and gaps directly comparable. The picture also shows which assumptions hold up and where evidence is missing. | 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 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 | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30-60 min je Interview | 30–60 min | 30–60 min per interview | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 5-12 Interviews | 4-8 | 1 participant per interview | 3-10 Kunden |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Problem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer Segments | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks |
Tagsno overlap | DiscoveryInterviewsValidation | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery |