View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Decision Making Radar |  Product Strategy Lean Canvas |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Architecture Request for Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When capabilities, maturity levels, or market positions need to be compared across several dimensions, overview is easily lost. Radar brings different characteristics into a shared picture and shows patterns faster than tables do. | When an early product bet still has too many open points, it brings target group, problem, and assumptions into a single view. It condenses the idea so core risks become nameable. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 45-90 min | 15-45 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 2-10 | 1-6 | 1-3 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Radar Map, Capability Scores, Action Areas | Lean Canvas, Core Assumptions, Experiment Backlog | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | AssessmentPortfolioCapability | StartupLeanAssumptionsBusiness model | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |