View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Architecture Risk Storming |  Product Discovery Problem Interview |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 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 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 | Low | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 60-90 min | 30-60 min je Interview | 45-60 min | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 | 5-12 Interviews | 2-8 | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Annotated Diagram, Prioritized Risk List, Action Backlog | Problem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer Segments | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tags1 shared | RiskArchitectureWorkshopValidation | DiscoveryInterviewsValidation | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |