PoC vs MVP

I’ve noticed that engineers — myself included — often conflate Proof of Concept (PoC) with Minimum Viable Product (MVP), but these serve fundamentally different purposes in the development process.

A PoC is fundamentally about code. It’s the process of writing enough code to demonstrate that a technical approach is feasible. The code quality doesn’t matter, the user experience is irrelevant, and the implementation may be completely discarded afterward. What matters is proving that something can be built. Engineers are naturally drawn to PoCs because they align with our inclination to solve technical problems.

An MVP, by contrast, is about demonstrating value to users. The technical implementation is secondary and may even be partially simulated or manually operated. The goal isn’t to prove that something works — it’s to validate that users actually need and want the solution. An MVP might involve technical shortcuts or manual processes behind the scenes, as long as it allows users to experience the core value proposition.

This distinction matters because it influences where we focus our efforts. When building a PoC, we focus purely on technical validation. When creating an MVP, we focus on user value validation. The confusion between these two concepts often leads us to over-engineer MVPs or create PoCs that aren’t actually useful.

The essence of this difference is simple: a PoC proves you can build something, while an MVP proves you should build it. Understanding this helps teams focus their efforts appropriately at each stage of product development.