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 Personas |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  UX Research User Interviews |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 target groups stay too vague and teams talk about the same people differently, personas create a shared, solid picture of usage. Condensed profiles make needs, contexts, and differences tangible enough for decisions. | An ADR permanently records an architecture decision with context, trade-offs, and consequence. It creates continuity for later changes because the decision path stays traceable. | When teams derive needs only from assumptions and real motives are missing, user interviews give direct access to behavior and meaning. Conversations from the target group's everyday life make patterns, tensions, and open questions solidly visible. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-4 h | 1-3 Tage | 15-45 min | 30–60 min per interview |
Participantsdifferent | 1-5 | Internes Team | 1-3 | 1 participant per interview |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Context Diagram, Container Diagram, Component Diagram | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureCommunicationVisualization | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery |