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 Solution Tree |  Knowledge Modeling Concept Mapping |  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. | 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. | Concept Mapping arranges terms and relationships in a network that makes subject-matter connections tangible. It fits when a topic needs to be understood structurally rather than linearly. | 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 | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 1-2 h Setup, laufend | 1-2 h | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 2-6 | 1-8 | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Opportunity Solution Tree, Experiment Backlog, Learning Log | Concept Map, Relationship Labels, Knowledge Gaps | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | DiscoveryOutcomesExperimentsOpportunity | KnowledgeConceptsMappingSensemaking | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |