View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Team Design Team API |  Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs) |  Architecture C4 Model |  Product Discovery Concierge MVP |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When expectations between teams stay fuzzy, it describes how a team can be reached, used, and held accountable. It clarifies responsibility, interaction, and load between teams. The result is captured as a Team API document. | 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. | The C4 Model makes a system legible across several resolution levels, from context down to code. It suits situations where different audiences need to understand the same architecture from different altitudes. | When an idea can first fail or grow through genuine hands-on support, it relies on manual work instead of automation. It shows whether user value holds up even under manual execution. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | Half day initial, dann laufend | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional | 1-4 h | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | Ein Team plus Stakeholder | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation | 1-5 | 3-10 Kunden |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Team API Document | Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions | Context Diagram, Container Diagram, Component Diagram | Concierge Learnings, Service Blueprint, MVP Risks |
Tagsno overlap | TeamAlignmentCommunicationService | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks | ArchitectureCommunicationVisualization | MVPValidationServiceDiscovery |