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 |  Product Discovery Concierge MVP |  Innovation Design Thinking |  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. | 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. | 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 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 | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 1-4 Wochen | 1 Tag bis mehrere Wochen | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 3-10 Kunden | 4-10 | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks | Problem Statement, Prototype, Test Learnings | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery | InnovationPrototypeResearch | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |