playbook/outfitter-agents/plugins/outfitter/skills/report-findings/references/comparison-methods.md

Comparison Methods

Structured approaches for evaluating and comparing options.

Feature Comparison Matrix

Side-by-side feature comparison.

Structure

| Feature | Option A | Option B | Option C |
|---------|----------|----------|----------|
| Criterion 1 | Value | Value | Value |
| Criterion 2 | Value | Value | Value |
| Criterion 3 | Value | Value | Value |

Best Practices

• Use consistent value types (all quantitative or all qualitative)
• Include units for numeric values
• Mark unknown/unavailable as "N/A" or "Unknown"
• Highlight standout values (best in bold)
• Keep to 5-8 most important criteria

Example

| Capability | Express | Fastify | Hono |
|------------|---------|---------|------|
| Requests/sec | 15k | 30k | **60k** |
| TypeScript | Plugin | Native | **Native** |
| Bundle size | 500KB | 350KB | **14KB** |
| Learning curve | Low | Medium | Low |

Trade-off Analysis

Deeper evaluation of strengths and weaknesses.

Per-Option Analysis

For each option, document:

Strengths:

• What it does well
• Unique advantages
• Best use cases

Weaknesses:

• Limitations
• Edge cases it handles poorly
• Known issues

Use cases:

• When to choose this option
• Ideal scenarios

Deal-breakers:

• When to definitely avoid
• Hard constraints it violates

Template

## Option: {Name}

**Strengths**:
- {Advantage 1} — {evidence/detail}
- {Advantage 2} — {evidence/detail}

**Weaknesses**:
- {Limitation 1} — {impact}
- {Limitation 2} — {impact}

**Best for**:
- {Use case 1}
- {Use case 2}

**Avoid when**:
- {Constraint 1}
- {Constraint 2}

Weighted Decision Matrix

Quantitative scoring for complex decisions.

Process

1. List criteria — identify evaluation factors
2. Assign weights — 1-5 importance scale
3. Score options — 1-5 on each criterion
4. Calculate totals — Sum(weight x score)
5. Interpret results — highest total is recommended

Template

| Criterion | Weight | Option A | Option B | Option C |
|-----------|--------|----------|----------|----------|
| Performance | 5 | 4 (20) | 5 (25) | 3 (15) |
| Ease of use | 3 | 5 (15) | 3 (9) | 4 (12) |
| Ecosystem | 4 | 5 (20) | 3 (12) | 2 (8) |
| Cost | 2 | 3 (6) | 4 (8) | 5 (10) |
| **Total** | | **61** | **54** | **45** |

Weight Guidelines

Weight	Meaning
5	Critical — must have
4	Important — strong preference
3	Moderate — nice to have
2	Minor — slight preference
1	Low — barely factors in

Score Guidelines

Score	Meaning
5	Excellent — best in class
4	Good — above average
3	Adequate — meets needs
2	Poor — below expectations
1	Failing — does not meet need

Pros/Cons List

Simple qualitative comparison.

Structure

## Option: {Name}

### Pros
- {Benefit 1}
- {Benefit 2}

### Cons
- {Drawback 1}
- {Drawback 2}

### Verdict
{Summary recommendation}

When to Use

• Quick informal comparisons
• Binary decisions (2 options)
• Early-stage exploration
• When quantification isn't meaningful

Decision Criteria Framework

Structured approach for defining what matters.

Categories

Functional Requirements:

• Features needed
• Capabilities required
• Integration points

Non-Functional Requirements:

• Performance benchmarks
• Scalability needs
• Security requirements

Operational Concerns:

• Maintenance burden
• Monitoring/observability
• Deployment complexity

Business Factors:

• Cost (license, infrastructure)
• Vendor lock-in risk
• Team expertise

Prioritization

Categorize criteria:

Priority	Meaning	Impact on Decision
Must-have	Non-negotiable	Eliminates options
Should-have	Strong preference	Heavy weighting
Nice-to-have	Bonus features	Light weighting

Method Selection Guide

Situation	Recommended Method
Quick comparison	Feature matrix
Complex decision	Weighted matrix
Stakeholder alignment	Trade-off analysis
Binary choice	Pros/cons list
Requirements gathering	Criteria framework