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 |  Innovation Design Thinking |  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 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 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 | High | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 1 Tag bis mehrere Wochen | 45-75 min | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 4-10 | 2-8 | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Problem Statement, Prototype, Test Learnings | Test Matrix, Test Plan | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | InnovationPrototypeResearch | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryOptions | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |