methodatlas
Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Criterion
Affinity Diagramming
UX Research
Affinity Diagramming
A/B Testing workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.
Growth
A/B Testing
Paper illustration of two considered options leading to a decision record with a marked status and visible consequences.
Architecture
Architecture Decision Record
A paper-based illustration representing arc42 with its core stages and visible working result.
Architecture
arc42
Purposedifferent
When research notes, feedback, or observations sit unconnected side by side, affinity diagramming sorts the raw material into solid themes. Many individual points turn into patterns that make decisions and opportunities clearer.When two variants compete, discussions quickly decide by taste rather than effect. A/B Testing checks behavior under controlled conditions and separates real improvement from chance or expectation effects.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.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
LowHighLowLow
Timedifferent
45–90 min1-4 Wochen15-45 min1-2 Tage
Participantsdifferent
3-101-61-31-4
Formatdifferent
WorkshopAsyncAsyncWorkshop + async
Outputdifferent
Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areasExperiment results, Decision log, Learning summaryADR File, Decision Log, RationaleArchitecture Document, Context View, Runtime View, Deployment View
Tagsno overlap
SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause
ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation
ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance
ArchitectureDocumentationCommunication
Add more methods