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 Kano Model |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |  Product Discovery MVP Test Matrix |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 features need to be distinguished by their effect on satisfaction, it makes expectations and surprises comparable. It separates basic needs, performance contribution, and delight. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 1-2 Tage | 1-5 Tage | 45-75 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 10-50 | Nutzertraffic | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Kano Matrix, Feature Classes, Priority Themes | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision | Test Matrix, Test Plan |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | SatisfactionPrioritizationCustomer | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryOptions |