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 |  Systems Thinking Polarity Mapping |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | Polarity Mapping makes tensions between two opposing poles tangible, such as standardization and adaptation or control and autonomy. The method guards against making apparent either-or decisions prematurely. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-4 h | 1-2 h | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 15-45 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-5 | 3-12 | 3-20 Reviewer | 1-3 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Context Diagram, Container Diagram, Component Diagram | Polarity Map, Warning Signs, Balance Actions | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureCommunicationVisualization | Systems thinkingTradeoffsLeadership | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance |