methodatlas
Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Criterion
Paper illustration for Problem Interview
Product Discovery
Problem Interview
Paper illustration of two people facing each other, speech bubbles and an open interview notebook.
UX Research
User Interviews
Paper illustration of two user profile cards with a goal, behavior evidence, and an open research question.
UX Research
Personas
Paper illustration for Concierge MVP
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 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 target groups stay too vague and teams talk about the same people differently, personas create a shared, solid picture of usage. Condensed profiles make needs, contexts, and differences tangible enough for decisions.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
MediumLowMediumMedium
Timedifferent
30-60 min je Interview30–60 min per interview1-3 Tage1-4 Wochen
Participantsdifferent
5-12 Interviews1 participant per interviewInternes Team3-10 Kunden
Formatsame
Workshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + async
Outputdifferent
Problem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer SegmentsInterview Notes, Themes, Insight SummaryPersona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario NotesConcierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks
Tagsno overlap
DiscoveryInterviewsValidation
QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery
ResearchCustomerSynthesis
MVPValidationServiceDiscovery
Add more methods