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
A paper-based illustration representing arc42 with its core stages and visible working result.
Architecture
arc42
A/B Testing workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.
Growth
A/B Testing
Paper illustration of ICE Scoring with its method-specific working model.
Product Strategy
ICE Scoring
Paper illustration of two considered options leading to a decision record with a marked status and visible consequences.
Architecture
Architecture Decision Record
Purposedifferent
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.When ideas need sorting quickly, it condenses impact, confidence, and effort into one compact score. It connects customer value, product logic, and decision priorities. The result is captured as an ICE table and top-ideas list.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.
Complexitydifferent
LowHighLowLow
Timedifferent
1-2 Tage1-4 Wochen30-60 min15-45 min
Participantsdifferent
1-41-62-81-3
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncAsyncWorkshop + asyncAsync
Outputdifferent
Architecture Document, Context View, Runtime View, Deployment ViewExperiment results, Decision log, Learning summaryICE Table, Top Idea ListADR File, Decision Log, Rationale
Tagsno overlap
ArchitectureDocumentationCommunication
ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation
PrioritizationScoringGrowthDecision
ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance
Add more methods