View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  UX Research Customer Journey Mapping |  Architecture arc42 |  Growth A/B Testing |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a user journey falls apart across many touchpoints, customer journey mapping makes the experience visible as a coherent arc. Phases, emotions, and breaks become legible enough to prioritize critical moments deliberately. | 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. | 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 | Medium | Low | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 2-4 h | 1-2 Tage | 1-4 Wochen | 15-45 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-10 | 1-4 | 1-6 | 1-3 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Journey Map, Pain-point List, Opportunity Backlog | Architecture Document, Context View, Runtime View, Deployment View | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | JourneyServiceService design | ArchitectureDocumentationCommunication | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance |