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
Quality Attribute Workshop workspace showing the question, observations, and next decision.
Architecture
Quality Attribute Workshop
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
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.A Quality Attribute Workshop translates quality requirements into concrete scenarios and architecture impulses. The method brings product, engineering, and operations to the same view of desired properties.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.
Complexitydifferent
LowMediumHighLow
Timedifferent
1-2 Tage2-4 h1-4 Wochen15-45 min
Participantsdifferent
1-45-151-61-3
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshopAsyncAsync
Outputdifferent
Architecture Document, Context View, Runtime View, Deployment ViewQuality Scenarios, Priority List, Architecture ConcernsExperiment results, Decision log, Learning summaryADR File, Decision Log, Rationale
Tagsno overlap
ArchitectureDocumentationCommunication
RequirementsArchitectureWorkshop
ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation
ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance
Add more methods