View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Growth Funnel Analysis |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Architecture arc42 |  Growth A/B Testing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When many visitors or users drop off along the way, the reason behind the number often stays hidden. Funnel Analysis exposes these transitions and makes visible exactly where the path collapses. | 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. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 1-2 Tage | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 1-5 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 1-4 | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Funnel report, Drop-off analysis, Optimization hypotheses | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Architecture Document, Context View, Runtime View, Deployment View | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | AnalyticsConversionGrowth | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | ArchitectureDocumentationCommunication | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |