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 |  Architecture Views and Beyond |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  Architecture arc42 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | Views and Beyond organizes architecture into several views so no single diagram has to do everything at once. This makes it possible to choose the representation that fits the stakeholder's question. | When statements, evidence, and counterarguments get mixed up, a debate quickly loses its structure. Argument Mapping breaks a thesis down into its reasoning and makes visible what it really rests on. | 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 | Medium | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 1-3 Tage | 1-3 h | 1-2 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | 1-4 | 1-8 | 1-4 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Architecture Views, Cross-view Notes, Rationale | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Architecture Document, Context View, Runtime View, Deployment View |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | DocumentationStakeholdersArchitecture | SensemakingDecisionRationale | ArchitectureDocumentationCommunication |