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 Solution Interview |  Innovation Design Thinking |  Product Discovery Opportunity Scoring |  Product Discovery Concierge MVP |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | For complex user problems with an uncertain cause, the method connects observation, interpretation, and experiment into a learning cycle. It keeps the focus on real needs and avoids premature solution language. This produces robust decisions for product and service. | When opportunities need ranking by their effect, it makes importance and satisfaction directly comparable. It separates problem, assumption, solution, and evidence. The result is captured as an opportunity-score table and top outcomes. | 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 | Medium | High | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30-60 min je Interview | 1 Tag bis mehrere Wochen | 60-120 min | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 5-10 Interviews | 4-10 | 3-6 | 3-10 Kunden |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Solution Feedback, Objection List, Validation Notes | Problem Statement, Prototype, Test Learnings | Opportunity Score Table, Top Outcomes | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks |
Tagsno overlap | ValidationInterviewsPrototype | InnovationPrototypeResearch | PrioritizationDiscoveryOutcomesNeeds | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery |