Compare

View methods side by side.

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

Selected:Solution Interview ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)Fake Door Test Problem Interview

Criterion	Product Discovery Solution Interview	Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)	Product Discovery Fake Door Test	Product Discovery Problem Interview
Purposedifferent	When a solution idea is already on the table, it checks how it is understood and evaluated. It looks for resonance, objections, and missing fit early in the conversation.	ARID examines how well developers can work with a technical design. It focuses on a part of the system that can still be revised, between the architecture overview and the detailed specification.	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.	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.
Complexitysame	Medium	Medium	Medium	Medium
Timedifferent	30-60 min je Interview	2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional	1-5 Tage	30-60 min je Interview
Participantsdifferent	5-10 Interviews	Designers, developers as users, and facilitation	Nutzertraffic	5-12 Interviews
Formatdifferent	Workshop + async	Workshop + async	Async	Workshop + async
Outputdifferent	Solution Feedback, Objection List, Validation Notes	Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions	Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision	Problem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer Segments
Tags1 shared	ValidationInterviewsPrototype	ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks	ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery	DiscoveryInterviewsValidation

Add more methods