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 |  Domain Modeling EventStorming |  Architecture Risk Storming |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 domain consists of many events, rules, and states, it creates a shared modeling space for the team. It bundles language, flows, and boundaries before domain knowledge fragments into siloed views. | Helps clarify architecture context, options, and consequences in concrete terms. It organizes technical context, alternatives, and consequences. The result is captured as an Annotated Diagram, a Prioritized Risk List, and an Action Backlog. | When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30-60 min je Interview | 2-8 h | 60-90 min | 45-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 5-12 Interviews | 5-12 | 4-12 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Problem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer Segments | Event Timeline, Ubiquitous Language, Boundaries, Open Questions | Annotated Diagram, Prioritized Risk List, Action Backlog | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking |
Tagsno overlap | DiscoveryInterviewsValidation | Domain-Driven DesignEventsDiscoveryWorkshop | RiskArchitectureWorkshopValidation | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation |