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 Lean Coffee |  Product Discovery Opportunity Solution Tree |  Facilitation Fishbowl Discussion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 group without a fixed agenda needs to get into useful conversations quickly, Lean Coffee structures the start around interests rather than a presentation. The group itself negotiates which topics get time first and which wait. | When discovery keeps swinging between goals, ideas, and learning loops, it creates clear steering logic. It connects the desired outcome, opportunities, and experiments into a legible structure. | When a controversial topic needs depth and discipline at the same time, Fishbowl Discussion makes the structure of the conversation transparent. The format keeps the core small enough for real dialogue and open enough for controlled turnover. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 30-90 min | 1-2 h Setup, laufend | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 3-20 | 2-6 | 8-80 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Prioritized Topics, Discussion Notes, Action Items | Opportunity Solution Tree, Experiment Backlog, Learning Log | Discussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | FacilitationAutonomyDialogue | DiscoveryOutcomesExperimentsOpportunity | FacilitationDialogueLarge group |