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 Opportunity Interview |  Knowledge Modeling Peer Instruction |  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 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. | Peer Instruction uses group thinking to clarify difficult terms or concepts faster. The method combines individual reflection with social correction and shared precision. | 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 | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 30-60 min je Interview | 10-20 min je Frage | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 5-12 Interviews | 6-50 | 8-80 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Interview Notes, Opportunity Themes, Customer Quotes | Concept Questions, Vote Results, Learning Notes | Discussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | DiscoveryInterviewsOpportunityCustomer | LearningDialogueFacilitation | FacilitationDialogueLarge group |