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 |  Product Strategy DIBB |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Architecture Architecture Communication Canvas |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | DIBB helps clarify target groups, value, goals, and priorities by making the logic behind a decision explicit. It captures results as a DIBB document, belief list, bet list, and learning report. | An RFC clarifies architecture context, options, and consequences. It structures technical context, alternatives, tradeoffs, open questions, and review feedback, and captures the result as an RFC document, reviewer comments, and a decision rationale. | The Architecture Communication Canvas plans architecture communication so the right people receive the right message. The method turns technical complexity into deliberate communication design. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-4 h | 1-2 h | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 60-120 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-5 | 2-8 | 3-20 Reviewer | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Context Diagram, Container Diagram, Component Diagram | DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning report | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Communication Canvas, Stakeholder Messages, Architecture Communication Plan |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureCommunicationVisualization | StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ArchitectureCommunicationStakeholdersCanvas |