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 Risk Storming |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |  Growth A/B Testing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | Helps clarify architecture context, options, and consequences in concrete terms. It organizes technical context, alternatives, and consequences. The result is captured as an Annotated Diagram, a Prioritized Risk List, and an Action Backlog. | 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 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 | Low | Medium | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 60-90 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 45-60 min | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 4-12 | 3-20 Reviewer | 2-8 | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Annotated Diagram, Prioritized Risk List, Action Backlog | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | RiskArchitectureWorkshopValidation | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |