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 User Interviews |  Operations A3 Problem Solving |  Product Discovery MVP Test Matrix |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | For a complex deviation with several people involved, the method bundles problem, analysis, and decision onto one page. It creates a shared working space where causes, countermeasures, and follow-up fit together. | 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 | Low | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 45-90 min | 45-75 min | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 2-5 | 2-8 | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | A3 Report, Action Plan, Root Cause Analysis | Test Matrix, Test Plan | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | LeanProblem solvingCoachingOperations | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryOptions | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |