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 Tree Testing |  Product Discovery Concierge MVP |  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 a navigation exists but search paths still fail, tree testing checks findability without visual distraction. The method shows whether labels, levels, and paths really lead to the intended destination. | 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. | 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 | 1-2 Tage | 1-4 Wochen | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 5-12 Interviews | Based on research question | 3-10 Kunden | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Problem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer Segments | Findability Metrics, Path Analysis, Revised IA | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | DiscoveryInterviewsValidation | Information architectureNavigationFindability | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |