View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Decision Making PERT Estimation |  Decision Making Three-Point Estimation |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | ATAM helps teams weigh architecture decisions when quality goals compete. The team considers business goals, stakeholder expectations, and technical decisions together. The evaluation shows which risks need further investigation. | On complex initiatives, a plain average tends to understate just how uncertain the outcome really is. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a PERT Estimate, Expected Value, and Risk Notes. | A single estimate for effort, time, or risk often looks too smooth for the real uncertainty behind it. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a Three-Point Estimate, Risk Range, and Assumption Notes. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 15-45 min | 10-30 min je Item |
Participantsdifferent | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 1-8 | 1-8 |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | PERT Estimate, Expected Value, Risk Notes | Three-Point Estimate, Risk Range, Assumption Notes |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | EstimationUncertaintyRisk | EstimationUncertaintyForecasting |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
