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 Affinity Diagramming |  Architecture arc42 |  Growth A/B Testing |  Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | 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. | ARID examines how well developers can work with a technical design. It focuses on a part of the system that can still be revised, between the architecture overview and the detailed specification. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45–90 min | 1-2 Tage | 1-4 Wochen | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 1-4 | 1-6 | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Architecture Document, Context View, Runtime View, Deployment View | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | ArchitectureDocumentationCommunication | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks |