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 |  Facilitation Dot Voting |  Product Discovery Opportunity Interview |  Facilitation Nominal Group Technique |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 a workshop has produced too many options and the group needs to condense quickly, dot voting makes preferences visible in a short time. It bundles individual votes into a solid signal for the next selection. | When opportunities are still hidden behind signals of need, it structures conversations around needs and obstacles. It looks for patterns that lead to new product opportunities. | When loud voices could dominate a round, Nominal Group Technique protects individual thinking time from group effects. It collects ideas separately first and only then enables shared weighting. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 5-15 min | 30-60 min je Interview | 60-120 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 3-20 | 5-12 Interviews | 5-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Interview Notes, Opportunity Themes, Customer Quotes | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | DiscoveryInterviewsOpportunityCustomer | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion |