View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  UX Research Tree Testing |  Product Discovery Solution Interview |  Product Discovery Wizard of Oz Test |  Product Discovery Concierge MVP |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a navigation exists but search paths still fail, tree testing checks findability without visual distraction. The method shows whether labels, levels, and paths really lead to the intended destination. | 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. | When a new experience would still be too expensive to automate for real, it simulates the outcome behind the scenes. It checks user reaction and value before the technology disappears. | 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 | Medium | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-2 Tage | 30-60 min je Interview | 2-10 Tage | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | Based on research question | 5-10 Interviews | 5-20 Nutzer | 3-10 Kunden |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Findability Metrics, Path Analysis, Revised IA | Solution Feedback, Objection List, Validation Notes | Prototype Learnings, Manual Effort Notes, Risk List | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks |
Tagsno overlap | Information architectureNavigationFindability | ValidationInterviewsPrototype | PrototypeValidationMVP | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery |