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 C4 Model |  Architecture Request for Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | Half day initial, dann laufend | 1-4 h | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | Ein Team plus Stakeholder | 1-5 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Team API Document | Context Diagram, Container Diagram, Component Diagram | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | TeamAlignmentCommunicationService | ArchitectureCommunicationVisualization | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
