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 C4 Model |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs) |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | The C4 Model makes a system legible across several resolution levels, from context down to code. It suits situations where different audiences need to understand the same architecture from different altitudes. | When research notes, feedback, or observations sit unconnected side by side, affinity diagramming sorts the raw material into solid themes. Many individual points turn into patterns that make decisions and opportunities clearer. | 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 a lot is assumed about a target group but little is seen jointly, empathy mapping makes knowledge and gaps directly comparable. The picture also shows which assumptions hold up and where evidence is missing. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-4 h | 45–90 min | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional | 30–60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-5 | 3-10 | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation | 4-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Context Diagram, Container Diagram, Component Diagram | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureCommunicationVisualization | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop |