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 |  UX Research User Interviews |  Product Discovery Test Card |  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 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. | The Test Card turns a critical assumption into a testable claim and specifies in advance which result counts as success. | 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 | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 60-90 min | 30–60 min per interview | 20-35 min | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 | 1 participant per interview | 1-5 | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Annotated Diagram, Prioritized Risk List, Action Backlog | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Test Card with a pre-set threshold | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | RiskArchitectureWorkshopValidation | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryHypothesis | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |