A practical tool evaluation · October 1, 2026
UXXU vs Archyl
Consider UXXU for visual modeling and connected reviews today. If repository discovery is the deciding requirement, evaluate Archyl directly: UXXU’s codeToC4 workflow is still early access.
Written by UXXU. This is a workflow comparison based on product documentation, not an independent benchmark. Review Archyl’s own documentation for current capabilities and terms.
Start with how the model will be maintained
Archyl: C4 documentation with repository discovery, YAML authoring and drift checks. Teams evaluating code-connected documentation and architecture conformance.
UXXU: model visually in a shared workspace, reuse architecture elements across views, and connect a compatible AI client through MCP. The free plan lets one user evaluate up to 400 architecture items. Review current pricing.
Run this comparison on a checkout system
Use a representative repository to assess discovery accuracy, then review an intentional code change against the model. Archyl advertises repository discovery, drift scoring and MCP context. Verify these workflows against your own codebase rather than relying on a feature checklist.
- Identify the customer, commerce system and external payment provider in a context view.
- Open the container view and trace a checkout request from the frontend to its data store.
- Rename the payment provider. Record which related views change and which steps are manual.
- Share the result with a colleague who did not create it. Ask them to locate the boundary and explain the payment dependency.
- Compare the cost, permissions and maintenance effort for your actual team.
Inspect the UXXU example
Use this public e-commerce model for the navigation exercise. Editing requires your own workspace; the public example is read-only.
Take the same example to both tools
Download a portable checkout model and use its names, boundaries and relationships as a common specification. The file uses Structurizr DSL; tools with another input format require translation. It is not a universal import.
Validate a repository-derived boundary
Use a small repository you are permitted to analyze. Before discovery, have a maintainer record its independently runnable applications, owned stores and one external dependency. Compare the generated draft with that reference rather than grading how complete the picture looks.
- Check proposed containers
- Each container has an entry point or deployment target and an agreed responsibility. Mark directories incorrectly promoted to applications.
- Check a runtime dependency
- Trace an integration configured through environment or deployment settings. Record missing relationships and unsupported guesses.
- Review an intentional change
- Change a dependency in a test branch, then inspect what the discovery or drift workflow reports. Distinguish a real architectural change from code refactoring.
Download the evaluation worksheet and record observations for each tool. It contains pass criteria and blank evidence fields, not preassigned scores.
Make the decision with the maintainers
If repository discovery is required now, evaluate Archyl’s advertised workflow directly. UXXU codeToC4 is early access; do not count it as an available substitute in a purchasing decision. UXXU’s visual modeling and MCP can still be evaluated against a manually reviewed architecture.
Give the people who will own the architecture the same editing task. Record how they review a proposed change, how a reader finds detail and what it takes to keep documentation current. Choose the workflow that fits that recurring work.
Put the example to work
Explore a live model, then build your own connected C4 views. UXXU’s free plan includes 400 architecture items for one user.