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 |  Agile Specification by Example |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Architecture arc42 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 business rules need to become precise, it ties language, example, and test together. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as an Example Table and Acceptance Tests. | An RFC clarifies architecture context, options, and consequences. It structures technical context, alternatives, tradeoffs, open questions, and review feedback, and captures the result as an RFC document, reviewer comments, and a decision rationale. | arc42 structures architecture knowledge so teams can document system, decisions, and risks consistently. The template builds a living understanding of the architecture instead of scattered notes. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 15-45 min | 60-90 min pro Feature | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 1-2 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 1-3 | 3-6 | 3-20 Reviewer | 1-4 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Architecture Document, Context View, Runtime View, Deployment View |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ArchitectureDocumentationCommunication |