View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Agile Ideal Days |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Decision Making PERT Estimation |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When effort needs to be thought of as real working time, it offers a simple common denominator for comparison. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as Ideal Day Estimates, Assumption Notes, and Capacity Caveats. | 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. | On complex initiatives, a plain average tends to understate just how uncertain the outcome really is. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a PERT Estimate, Expected Value, and Risk Notes. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 15-60 min | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 15-45 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-9 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 1-8 |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Ideal Day Estimates, Assumption Notes, Capacity Caveats | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | PERT Estimate, Expected Value, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationEffortAgile | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | EstimationUncertaintyRisk |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
