View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Architecture Quality Attribute Workshop |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |  Growth A/B Testing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | A Quality Attribute Workshop translates quality requirements into concrete scenarios and architecture impulses. The method brings product, engineering, and operations to the same view of desired properties. | 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. | When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. | 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 | Low | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 2-4 h | 15-45 min | 45-60 min | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 5-15 | 1-3 | 2-8 | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Quality Scenarios, Priority List, Architecture Concerns | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | RequirementsArchitectureWorkshop | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |