Compare

View methods side by side.

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

Selected:ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)A/B Testing Starfish Retrospective 4Ls Retrospective

Criterion	Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)	Growth A/B Testing	Agile Starfish Retrospective	Agile 4Ls Retrospective
Purposedifferent	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.	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 improvement options need to be sorted more finely than just start and stop, it brings observations into clear kinds of action. This makes visible what should be done more, less, newly, or continued.	When a sprint should not only be assessed but also learned from, it captures experience in clear learning categories. It records what worked, what's missing, and what should run differently next time.
Complexitydifferent	Medium	High	Low	Low
Timedifferent	2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional	1-4 Wochen	45-90 min	45–75 min
Participantsdifferent	Designers, developers as users, and facilitation	1-6	4-12	Team members involved
Formatdifferent	Workshop + async	Async	Workshop	Workshop
Outputdifferent	Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions	Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary	Starfish Board, Practice Changes, Experiments	4Ls Board, Learning Themes, Improvement Actions
Tagsno overlap	ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks	ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation	RetrospectiveImprovementExperimentsTeam	RetrospectiveLearningReflectionTeam

Add more methods