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 Request for Comments |  Product Discovery Smoke Test |  Architecture arc42 |  Growth A/B Testing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | When demand only needs to be roughly verified, it tests interest with minimal effort. It measures whether people would take a next step at all. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 1-5 Tage | 1-2 Tage | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | Nutzertraffic | 1-4 | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Interest Metrics, Conversion Signal, Learning Note | Architecture Document, Context View, Runtime View, Deployment View | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ValidationExperimentsDemandGrowth | ArchitectureDocumentationCommunication | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |