View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Three AmigosSAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method)ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)Acceptance Criteria Workshop
| Criterion |  Agile Three Amigos |  Architecture SAAM (Software Architecture Analysis Method) |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Agile Acceptance Criteria Workshop |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When story, test, and implementation could drift apart, it brings business perspective, engineering, and quality together early. It prevents a story from being read differently only late in the process. | 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. | 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. | When a story needs clear checkpoints before implementation, it sharpens expectation and scope together. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as Acceptance Criteria and a Story Update. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | High | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 15-30 min | Preparation, scenario analysis, and findings review; effort depends on scope | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 20-40 min pro Story |
Participantsdifferent | 3 | Architecture experts and stakeholders for scenarios and weighting | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Clarified Story, Test Examples, Open Questions | 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 | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Acceptance Criteria, Story Update |
Tagsno overlap | CollaborationBehavior-Driven DevelopmentQualityRefinement | ArchitectureChangeAnalysisComparisonQuality | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | AgileRequirementsRefinementBehavior-Driven Development |