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 |  UX Research User Interviews |  Product Discovery MVP Test Matrix |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | When several minimal variants compete to answer the same question, it makes comparing and choosing between them cleaner. It separates problem, assumption, solution, and evidence. The result is captured as a Test Matrix and a Test Plan. | 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 | Medium | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-2 Tage | 30–60 min per interview | 45-75 min | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | Based on research question | 1 participant per interview | 2-8 | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Findability Metrics, Path Analysis, Revised IA | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Test Matrix, Test Plan | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | Information architectureNavigationFindability | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryOptions | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |