View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Domain Modeling Context Map |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Product Discovery Smoke Test |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When several contexts need to talk to each other, it makes their relationships and dependencies legible. It helps sort integration pressure and responsibilities across system boundaries. | ATAM helps teams weigh architecture decisions when quality goals compete. The team considers business goals, stakeholder expectations, and technical decisions together. The evaluation shows which risks need further investigation. | When demand only needs to be roughly verified, it tests interest with minimal effort. It measures whether people would take a next step at all. | When demand is still unclear, it measures interest in a feature before it is built. It separates real behavior from polite agreement and deliberately keeps build effort small. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 1-5 Tage | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | Nutzertraffic | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Context Map, Integration Patterns, Boundary Notes | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Interest Metrics, Conversion Signal, Learning Note | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | Domain-Driven DesignBoundariesStrategy | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | ValidationExperimentsDemandGrowth | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |