View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method)Architecture Decision RecordARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
| Criterion |  Architecture SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method) |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs) |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | SAAM helps teams judge an architecture’s suitability for selected tasks and changes. It is particularly useful for examining modifiability and comparing architecture alternatives with clear reasoning. | 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. | ARID examines how well developers can work with a technical design. It focuses on a part of the system that can still be revised, between the architecture overview and the detailed specification. | ATAM helps teams weigh architecture decisions when quality goals compete. The team considers business goals, stakeholder expectations, and technical decisions together. The evaluation shows which risks need further investigation. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Low | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | Preparation, scenario analysis, and findings review; effort depends on scope | 15-45 min | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | Architecture experts and stakeholders for scenarios and weighting | 1-3 | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Domain functions mapped to components and connections, Quality attributes and evaluation criteria, Typical tasks and their effects on the architecture, Reasoned evaluation or comparison of alternatives | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations |
Tags1 shared | ArchitectureChangeAnalysisComparisonQuality | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders |