View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Delivery MoSCoW |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Architecture C4 Model |  Architecture arc42 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a release carries too many demands and priorities are only ever negotiated, MoSCoW creates clear boundaries for the next cut. Must, Should, Could, and Won't make commitment, room for maneuver, and trade-off logic visible to everyone involved. | An RFC clarifies architecture context, options, and consequences. It structures technical context, alternatives, tradeoffs, open questions, and review feedback, and captures the result as an RFC document, reviewer comments, and a decision rationale. | 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. | 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 | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30-90 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 1-4 h | 1-2 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 3-20 Reviewer | 1-5 | 1-4 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Prioritized Backlog, Release Scope, Tradeoff Notes | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Context Diagram, Container Diagram, Component Diagram | Architecture Document, Context View, Runtime View, Deployment View |
Tagsno overlap | PrioritizationScopeDecision | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ArchitectureCommunicationVisualization | ArchitectureDocumentationCommunication |