View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  UX Research Card Sorting |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | An ADR permanently records an architecture decision with context, trade-offs, and consequence. It creates continuity for later changes because the decision path stays traceable. | When content only makes sense internally and users can't find the structure again, card sorting exposes their mental order. Terms, groups, and naming are then aligned with the target group's expectations. | ATAM helps teams weigh architecture decisions when quality goals compete. The team considers business goals, stakeholder expectations, and technical decisions together. The evaluation shows which risks need further investigation. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 15-45 min | 20-45 min | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | 1-3 | Based on research question | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Content groups, Label set, IA hypotheses | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | Information architectureNavigationStructure | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
