View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  Architecture arc42 |  Agile Acceptance Criteria Workshop |  Agile Specification by Example |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When statements, evidence, and counterarguments get mixed up, a debate quickly loses its structure. Argument Mapping breaks a thesis down into its reasoning and makes visible what it really rests on. | 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 a story needs clear checkpoints before implementation, it sharpens expectation and scope together. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as Acceptance Criteria and a Story Update. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 1-2 Tage | 20-40 min pro Story | 60-90 min pro Feature |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 1-4 | 3-6 | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Architecture Document, Context View, Runtime View, Deployment View | Acceptance Criteria, Story Update | Example Table, Acceptance Tests |
Tagsno overlap | SensemakingDecisionRationale | ArchitectureDocumentationCommunication | AgileRequirementsRefinementBehavior-Driven Development | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development |