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 Customer Journey Mapping |  Architecture Request for Comments |  UX Design Customer Journey 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. | When a user journey falls apart across many touchpoints, customer journey mapping makes the experience visible as a coherent arc. Phases, emotions, and breaks become legible enough to prioritize critical moments deliberately. | 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. | When a journey needs to be understood across several phases, it arranges experience, touchpoints, and opportunities into one picture. It makes gaps and friction along the user path clear. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-4 h | 2-4 h | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 1-5 | 4-10 | 3-20 Reviewer | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Context Diagram, Container Diagram, Component Diagram | Journey Map, Pain-point List, Opportunity Backlog | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Customer Journey Canvas, Pain Points, Experience Opportunities |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureCommunicationVisualization | JourneyServiceService design | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | JourneyCustomerService designCanvas |