Decision Framework Comparison Matrix — 155 Frameworks Analyzed

The definitive reference comparing every decision framework in SolveRight's scoring engine, organized by category with rubric type, complexity, and input requirements.

Last updated March 23, 2026

Decision Science (MCDA)(27 frameworks)

Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods that provide mathematically rigorous approaches to comparing alternatives across multiple dimensions. These include pairwise comparison, distance-based, and outranking methods.

Decision Science (MCDA) — Framework Comparison
Framework	Rubric Type	Complexity	Required Inputs
Weighted Decision Matrix	Weighted Sum	Low	3
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)	Comparative Pairwise	High	2
Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)	Weighted Sum	High	3
Regret Minimization Framework	Qualitative Impact	Low	3
ANP (Analytic Network Process)	Comparative Pairwise	High	3
TOPSIS	Distance-Based	Medium	3
ELECTRE (I / II / III / IV / TRI)	Outranking	High	5
PROMETHEE (I / II)	Outranking	Medium	4
VIKOR	Distance-Based	Medium	3
MAUT (Multi-Attribute Utility Theory)	Weighted Sum	High	4
MAVT (Multi-Attribute Value Theory)	Weighted Sum	Medium	4
MACBETH	Comparative Pairwise	Medium	3
WPM (Weighted Product Model)	Multiplicative	Low	3
COPRAS	Distance-Based	Medium	3
ARAS (Additive Ratio Assessment)	Distance-Based	Medium	4
WASPAS	Weighted Sum	Medium	4
EDAS (Evaluation Based on Distance from Average Solution)	Distance-Based	Medium	3
CODAS	Distance-Based	Medium	4
MARCOS	Distance-Based	Medium	3
MABAC	Distance-Based	Medium	3
MULTIMOORA	Distance-Based	Medium	3
GRA (Grey Relational Analysis)	Distance-Based	Medium	3
DEMATEL	Comparative Pairwise	Medium	1
Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA)	Quantitative Formula	High	3
Kepner-Tregoe Decision Analysis	Weighted Sum	Medium	4
QFD / House of Quality	Weighted Sum	High	5
Weighting Methods (BWM, SWARA, CRITIC, ENTROPY, FUCOM, MEREC)	Quantitative Formula	Medium	3

Strategic Analysis(20 frameworks)

Frameworks for evaluating competitive position, market dynamics, and long-term strategic direction. These assess qualitative strategic factors and translate them into comparable impact scores.

Strategic Analysis — Framework Comparison
Framework	Rubric Type	Complexity	Required Inputs
SWOT Analysis	Qualitative Impact	Low	4
Porter's Five Forces	Qualitative Impact	Medium	5
Ansoff Matrix	Categorical	Low	3
Blue Ocean Strategy	Qualitative Impact	Medium	4
Competitive Positioning	Qualitative Impact	Medium	4
Strategic Alignment Assessment	Qualitative Impact	Low	4
TOWS Matrix	Qualitative Impact	Medium	4
PESTEL Analysis	Qualitative Impact	Low	6
VRIO Framework	Categorical	Medium	5
Value Chain Analysis (Porter)	Quantitative Formula	High	3
BCG Growth-Share Matrix	Categorical	Low	2
GE-McKinsey Nine-Box Matrix	Weighted Sum	Medium	3
Cynefin Framework	Categorical	Low	3
Stacey Matrix	Categorical	Low	2
Wardley Mapping	Categorical	Medium	3
CAGE Distance Framework	Quantitative Formula	Medium	4
Porter's Generic Strategies	Categorical	Low	3
Industry Lifecycle Analysis (ADL Matrix)	Categorical	Medium	2
Profit Pool Analysis	Quantitative Formula	High	3
Strategic Group Mapping	Comparative Pairwise	Medium	3

Financial Analysis(20 frameworks)

Quantitative frameworks that apply financial formulas to evaluate options based on costs, benefits, returns, and time-value considerations. All produce normalized 0-100 scores for cross-framework comparison.

Financial Analysis — Framework Comparison
Framework	Rubric Type	Complexity	Required Inputs
Cost-Benefit Analysis	Quantitative Formula	Medium	3
Total Cost of Ownership	Quantitative Formula	Medium	5
Opportunity Cost Analysis	Quantitative Formula	Low	2
Net Present Value (NPV)	Quantitative Formula	Medium	4
Internal Rate of Return (IRR)	Quantitative Formula	Medium	2
Modified IRR (MIRR)	Quantitative Formula	Medium	4
Profitability Index (PI)	Quantitative Formula	Low	2
Real Options Analysis (ROA)	Quantitative Formula	High	5
Break-Even Analysis	Quantitative Formula	Low	3
Economic Value Added (EVA)	Quantitative Formula	Medium	3
DCF Analysis	Quantitative Formula	High	5
Comparable Company Analysis	Quantitative Formula	Medium	3
Altman Z-Score	Quantitative Formula	Low	5
DuPont Analysis	Quantitative Formula	Low	4
Activity-Based Costing (ABC)	Quantitative Formula	High	4
LTV:CAC Ratio	Quantitative Formula	Low	2
Decision Tree Analysis / EMV	Probabilistic	Medium	4
Value at Risk (VaR)	Probabilistic	High	4
Synergy Valuation Framework	Quantitative Formula	High	5
Economic Moat Analysis	Categorical	Medium	3

Risk Assessment(16 frameworks)

Risk identification, assessment, and prioritization frameworks. These evaluate probability, impact, failure modes, and scenario outcomes to score options by risk-adjusted value.

Risk Assessment — Framework Comparison
Framework	Rubric Type	Complexity	Required Inputs
Risk Assessment Matrix	Qualitative Impact	Medium	4
Scenario Planning	Qualitative Impact	Medium	4
Execution Feasibility Assessment	Qualitative Impact	Low	4
Reversibility Assessment	Qualitative Impact	Low	4
FMECA (Failure Mode, Effects, and Criticality Analysis)	Multiplicative	High	5
Bow-Tie Analysis	Qualitative Impact	Medium	5
Fault Tree Analysis (FTA)	Probabilistic	High	5
Event Tree Analysis (ETA)	Probabilistic	High	4
Monte Carlo Simulation	Probabilistic	High	4
Bayesian Network Analysis	Probabilistic	High	4
FAIR (Factor Analysis of Information Risk)	Probabilistic	High	5
RCSA (Risk and Control Self-Assessment)	Qualitative Impact	Medium	4
RAID Log	Multiplicative	Low	4
Business Impact Analysis (BIA)	Quantitative Formula	Medium	4
Cross-Impact Analysis	Probabilistic	High	3
Delphi Method	Probabilistic	Medium	4

Technical Evaluation(19 frameworks)

Frameworks for evaluating technical decisions: technology selection, architecture trade-offs, build-vs-buy, and scalability assessment.

Technical Evaluation — Framework Comparison
Framework	Rubric Type	Complexity	Required Inputs
Pugh Matrix	Comparative	Medium	3
Scalability Assessment	Qualitative Impact	Medium	4
First Principles Analysis	Qualitative Impact	High	3
FMEA (Failure Mode and Effects Analysis)	Quantitative Formula	High	4
Sensitivity Analysis (Meta)	Quantitative Formula	High	3
ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)	Qualitative Impact	High	4
CBAM (Cost Benefit Analysis Method for Architecture)	Quantitative Formula	High	3
TRL (Technology Readiness Level)	Categorical	Medium	2
Build vs. Buy Decision Framework	Weighted Sum	Medium	6
Vendor/RFP Evaluation Matrix	Weighted Sum	Medium	5
STRIDE Threat Modeling	Categorical	Medium	4
CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System)	Quantitative Formula	Medium	6
CMMI (Capability Maturity Model Integration)	Categorical	High	4
Six Sigma DMAIC	Quantitative Formula	High	5
Earned Value Management (EVM)	Quantitative Formula	Medium	4
GQM (Goal Question Metric)	Logic-Based	Medium	3
HAZOP (Hazard and Operability Study)	Logic-Based	High	4
STAMP/STPA	Logic-Based	High	4
Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM)	Logic-Based	High	5

Product & Market(14 frameworks)

Frameworks that assess product-market fit, customer needs, market sizing, and competitive positioning from the product strategy perspective.

Product & Market — Framework Comparison
Framework	Rubric Type	Complexity	Required Inputs
Kano Model	Categorical	Medium	3
Jobs To Be Done	Qualitative Impact	Medium	4
Lean Canvas	Qualitative Impact	Medium	6
Business Model Canvas	Qualitative Impact	Low	9
Value Proposition Canvas	Qualitative Impact	Low	5
TAM-SAM-SOM Analysis	Quantitative Formula	Medium	5
RFM Analysis (Recency, Frequency, Monetary)	Quantitative Formula	Low	3
Van Westendorp Price Sensitivity Meter	Quantitative Formula	Medium	4
Conjoint Analysis	Probabilistic	High	4
Seven Powers (Helmer)	Categorical	Medium	2
AARRR Pirate Metrics	Quantitative Formula	Medium	5
Disruptive Innovation Framework	Categorical	Medium	4
Technology Adoption Lifecycle (Rogers)	Categorical	Low	4
Opportunity Scoring (Ulwick)	Quantitative Formula	Medium	2

Organizational & Change(12 frameworks)

Frameworks evaluating organizational readiness, change management complexity, stakeholder impact, and resource requirements for implementation.

Organizational & Change — Framework Comparison
Framework	Rubric Type	Complexity	Required Inputs
Stakeholder Impact Analysis	Qualitative Impact	Medium	3
RACI Matrix	Categorical	Low	3
RAPID Framework (Bain)	Categorical	Low	3
DACI Framework	Categorical	Low	3
SPADE Framework	Qualitative Impact	Medium	4
Kotter's 8-Step Change Model	Qualitative Impact	Medium	4
ADKAR Model (Prosci)	Qualitative Impact	Medium	5
Salience Model	Categorical	Medium	4
9-Box Talent Grid	Categorical	Low	2
OKRs (Objectives and Key Results)	Quantitative Formula	Low	2
Hoshin Kanri (Policy Deployment)	Weighted Sum	High	4
Burke-Litwin Model	Logic-Based	High	7

Innovation & Growth(11 frameworks)

Frameworks for assessing innovation potential, disruptive opportunity, technology readiness, and growth strategy viability.

Innovation & Growth — Framework Comparison
Framework	Rubric Type	Complexity	Required Inputs
Stage-Gate Process (Cooper)	Weighted Sum	High	5
Three Horizons Framework	Categorical	Low	4
Innovation Ambition Matrix	Quantitative Formula	Low	2
Playing to Win (Lafley & Martin)	Qualitative Impact	Medium	5
Growth Flywheel Framework	Logic-Based	Medium	4
Design Thinking Double Diamond	Qualitative Impact	Medium	4
Product Lifecycle Analysis	Categorical	Low	5
Bowman's Strategy Clock	Categorical	Low	3
Reference Class Forecasting	Probabilistic	Medium	3
Horizon Scanning	Qualitative Impact	Medium	3
M&A Due Diligence Scoring	Weighted Sum	High	6

Prioritization & Scoring(8 frameworks)

Scoring and ranking frameworks designed specifically for prioritizing backlogs, roadmaps, initiatives, and competing demands on limited resources.

Prioritization & Scoring — Framework Comparison
Framework	Rubric Type	Complexity	Required Inputs
RICE Scoring Model	Quantitative Formula	Low	4
ICE Scoring Model	Multiplicative	Low	3
WSJF (Weighted Shortest Job First)	Quantitative Formula	Low	4
MoSCoW Method	Categorical	Low	3
Pareto / ABC Analysis	Quantitative Formula	Low	2
Eisenhower Matrix	Categorical	Low	3
Value vs. Effort Matrix	Categorical	Low	3
Cost of Delay Analysis	Quantitative Formula	Medium	3

Operations & Process(8 frameworks)

Frameworks for evaluating operational efficiency, process optimization, supply chain decisions, and lean methodology application.

Operations & Process — Framework Comparison
Framework	Rubric Type	Complexity	Required Inputs
Time-to-Value	Quantitative Formula	Low	3
Value Stream Mapping (Lean)	Quantitative Formula	Medium	5
Theory of Constraints (Goldratt)	Logic-Based	Medium	4
SCOR Model	Weighted Sum	High	3
Economic Order Quantity (EOQ)	Quantitative Formula	Low	3
SCRAM (Supply Chain Resilience Assessment)	Weighted Sum	High	3
Ishikawa / Fishbone Diagram	Logic-Based	Low	3
8D Problem Solving	Logic-Based	Medium	4

Rubric Pattern Distribution

How the 155 frameworks distribute across the 10 rubric pattern types. Each rubric type implements a different mathematical approach to converting extracted data into comparable 0-100 scores.

Rubric Type Distribution Across All Frameworks
Rubric Type	Framework Count	Share
Quantitative Formula	43	28%
Qualitative Impact	28	18%
Categorical	27	17%
Weighted Sum	15	10%
Probabilistic	11	7%
Distance-Based	10	6%
Logic-Based	9	6%
Comparative Pairwise	5	3%
Multiplicative	4	3%
Outranking	2	1%
Comparative	1	1%

155

frameworks across 10 categories and 10 rubric pattern types

Source: SolveRight Framework Registry (auto-generated)

Run All Frameworks on Your Decision

See how your options score across 155 frameworks with deterministic rubric scoring.

Try SolveRight Free

14-day Pro trial, no credit card required

Frequently Asked Questions

How are the 155 frameworks selected?+

SolveRight's framework library is curated from peer-reviewed decision science literature, industry-standard business analysis methodologies, and validated practitioner frameworks. Each framework must have a formal analytical structure (not just a mental model) and produce outputs that can be scored on a 0-100 scale using one of the 10 rubric pattern types.

What does the complexity rating mean?+

Complexity reflects the depth of structured input a framework requires for reliable scoring. Low complexity frameworks (e.g., Pros/Cons, Eisenhower Matrix) need minimal structured data. Medium complexity frameworks (e.g., SWOT, Porter's Five Forces) require moderate domain-specific inputs. High complexity frameworks (e.g., AHP, TOPSIS, ELECTRE) require detailed pairwise comparisons or multi-dimensional criteria matrices.

Can I use all 155 frameworks on a single decision?+

Yes, though SolveRight recommends using persona-based bundles of 8-12 frameworks tailored to your role and decision type. Running all 155 frameworks would produce comprehensive but potentially overwhelming output. The platform auto-selects relevant frameworks based on your role and decision description, and you can add or remove frameworks at any time.

How often is this comparison matrix updated?+

This page is auto-generated from SolveRight's framework registry at build time. When new frameworks are added to the platform, this matrix updates automatically in the next deployment. The rubric type and complexity ratings are part of each framework's definition and are reviewed when rubric versions change.

What is the difference between rubric types?+

Each rubric type implements a different mathematical approach to scoring. Qualitative Impact maps text-based assessments to numerical scores. Quantitative Formula applies financial or mathematical formulas. Categorical classifies options into predefined groups. Comparative evaluates against a baseline. Distance-Based measures proximity to ideal solutions. See the methodology page for detailed explanations of all 10 types.

In Summary

This comparison matrix catalogs all 155decision frameworks in SolveRight's scoring engine across 10categories. Each framework is scored using one of 10 rubric pattern types — from qualitative impact assessment to outranking methods — selected to match the framework's analytical methodology. The matrix is auto-generated from the live framework registry, ensuring it always reflects current platform capabilities. For details on how each rubric type works, see the methodology page.