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 |  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. | 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. | 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 | 1-4 Wochen | 45-75 min | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 3-10 Kunden | 2-8 | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks | Test Matrix, Test Plan | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tags1 shared | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryOptions | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |