View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Engineering Failure Scenario Analysis |  Architecture C4 Model |  Growth A/B Testing |  Architecture arc42 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | In critical processes, it is not enough to plan only for the normal case. Failure Scenario Analysis looks at the path into failure and shows which failures, chains, and control gaps cause the most damage. | 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 two variants compete, discussions quickly decide by taste rather than effect. A/B Testing checks behavior under controlled conditions and separates real improvement from chance or expectation effects. | arc42 structures architecture knowledge so teams can document system, decisions, and risks consistently. The template builds a living understanding of the architecture instead of scattered notes. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 1-4 h | 1-4 Wochen | 1-2 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 1-5 | 1-6 | 1-4 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Failure Scenarios, Risk Notes, Control Gaps, Test and Response Actions | Context Diagram, Container Diagram, Component Diagram | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Architecture Document, Context View, Runtime View, Deployment View |
Tagsno overlap | FailureResilienceRisk | ArchitectureCommunicationVisualization | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | ArchitectureDocumentationCommunication |