TOGAF Demystification Series: Comparing TOGAF to Other Frameworks

For the second post in the TOGAF Demystification series, let's tackle the common topic of TOGAF to other frameworks. If you’ve spent time in the enterprise architecture (EA) domain, you’ve probably heard of TOGAF. For some, TOGAF is the obvious go-to framework for establishing an EA practice. For others, it’s “too big,” “too prescriptive,” or overshadowed by alternatives like Zachman, FEAF, or DoDAF. In reality, frameworks are tools—each designed for particular objectives. The question isn’t “Which is the best framework?” but rather “Which framework (or combination of frameworks) works best for my organization’s goals, structure, and culture?”

In this article, I’ll demystify TOGAF by comparing it to other well-known EA frameworks, explaining where and howeach can add value. We’ll also explore how these frameworks can coexist, delve into real-world examples, and provide a comparative matrix for quick reference.

Quick Refresh on TOGAF

TOGAF, short for The Open Group Architecture Framework, is known for its Architecture Development Method (ADM)—a step-by-step process guiding you from initial architecture vision to final implementation and governance. But beyond that, TOGAF is a modular toolkit of techniques, templates, and best practices. Rather than a rigid rulebook, it’s more of a “choose your own adventure” guide:

ADM: The iterative process for developing and managing enterprise architectures.
Content Framework: Guidance on what artifacts and deliverables to produce.
Reference Models: Pre-built templates (e.g., the Technical Reference Model) that can be tailored.
Governance and Capability: Recommendations for structuring an EA practice, from roles to boards.

Common Misconceptions

A frequent misconception is that TOGAF is inflexible or bloated. In truth, many organizations use it in a tailored way—picking the aspects relevant to their maturity level. The modular nature means you can adopt the entire ADM cycle or selectively incorporate pieces (like Architecture Governance or Capability Planning).

Not All Frameworks Are The Same

I would like to start us off with the notion that not all frameworks are the same and not all serve the same purpose. In many ways these comparisons have been like comparing apples and oranges. For a number of years I have observed that architects tend to compare these frameworks as if they all were built with the same goal in mind. With this logic there is no real winners in the comparison, just confusion.

While TOGAF is ubiquitous, it’s not alone. Different frameworks address diverse needs—some are more about classification, others about methodology, and still others designed for industry-specific scenarios.

Below is a high-level comparative matrix to set the stage:

Framework	Primary Focus	Strengths	Key Weaknesses	Typical Users
Zachman	Classification schema of EA artifacts (Who, What, When, Where, Why, How)	Extremely systematic; ensures coverage of multiple perspectives	Not a process or methodology; can be complex to implement for novices	Organizations wanting a robust taxonomy; detail-oriented architects
FEAF (Federal EA Framework)	U.S. federal government standards and compliance	Clear structure for governance, particularly for government agencies	Can be too narrowly focused on U.S. federal needs; less adaptable for private sector	U.S. government agencies or heavily regulated sectors
DoDAF (Department of Defense AF)	Military and defense sector architecture planning	Rigor and depth in operational and system views	Overly complex for commercial orgs; specialized terminology	Defense, aerospace, and other mission-critical public sector domains

Zachman

Nature: An ontology or classification scheme, not a process model.
Key Insight: It helps ensure you don’t miss any critical dimensions (data, function, network, people, time, motivation).
Typical Usage: Companies that want a structured “grid” for consistent documentation often pair Zachman with a process framework (like TOGAF).

FEAF (Federal EA Framework)

Nature: Tailored for the U.S. federal sector, focusing on compliance, standardization, and shared services.
Key Insight: Offers reference models for performance, business, service, data, and technical contexts.
Typical Usage: Government agencies or contractors bound by U.S. federal regulations.

DoDAF

Nature: Developed by the U.S. Department of Defense, heavy on operational and system views, plus capability planning.
Key Insight: Highly detailed artifacts, with emphasis on mission-critical, defense-related systems.
Typical Usage: Defense, aerospace, or organizations that adopt DoD standards for security or operational rigor.

How TOGAF Compares and Intersects

Modular vs. Rigid

TOGAF is methodology-driven (via the ADM) and also contains classification elements (e.g., the TOGAF Content Framework). Zachman, by contrast, is purely about classification—a set of perspectives ensuring your architecture covers all the “whos, whats, wheres, whens, whys, and hows.”

Government-Focused vs. Industry-Agnostic

FEAF and DoDAF have strict compliance requirements—great if you’re in the public sector but potentially cumbersome for commercial enterprises. TOGAF, in contrast, offers a foundation that can plug into these frameworks. For instance:

A federal agency might run FEAF as its overarching blueprint while leveraging TOGAF modules to structure solution architectures for major programs.
A defense contractor might conform to DoDAF but integrate TOGAF’s governance practices and iterative ADM for internal project consistency.

Business-Outcome Oriented vs. Technology Focused

Gartner’s approach often resonates with organizations that want quick wins and a strong line-of-sight to business results. TOGAF, likewise, places emphasis on business alignment (especially in the Preliminary and Architecture Vision phases of the ADM) but provides more detail on architecture artifacts than Gartner’s method.

Depth of Methods vs. Artifact Focus

TOGAF is routinely compared to other frameworks. In many instances it is unfairly compared to other frameworks that serve another purpose and/or outcome. We first have to split these into two areas:

Area of Focus - Defines the disciplined area of focus of the framework. Examples would be: Service Management, Program Management, Architecture Development, Software Development, etc.
Type of Architecture Framework - A defined set of segmentations to identify the logical groupings of frameworks with similar origins, goals and outcomes.

We first want to look at the area of focus when comparing frameworks. We want to make sure we are in the "same ballpark" when we compare. By looking at this we can use it as the qualifier to quickly see if we compare at all. For example, if you wanted to determine what is the idea EA framework for your orginization it doesn't make much sense to compare frameworks ITIL vs. TOGAF or COBIT vs. TOGAF (outside edge cases where this is done deliberately). These frameworks have completely different:

problems it trying to solve
outcomes
supporting processes
stakeholders, suppliers and customers
deliverables

When we evaluate frameworks that were built to support a different outcome than the outcome we are looking for in EA the comparison is fundamentally flawed.

Once we determine that we are "in the same ballpark" and comparing architecture frameworks, we then can look at the the types of architecture frameworks.

Three major types of architecture frameworks:

General Purpose - frameworks that are purposefully generic in application and built to be highly reusable and modular to support a broad range of outcomes, industries, skills and maturity levels. Examples include: TOGAF, Zachman
Business Specific - frameworks driven by a set of defined business or industry concerns. Examples include: MODAF, FEAF, TEAF, DODAF
Vendor Specific - frameworks that are aligned to specific offerings provided by that vendors. Examples include: Oracle EA, Microsoft Value Realization Framework, Cap Gemini IAF (deprecated and merged w/ TOGAF)

Approach to Evaluate Frameworks

There are two key points that I've highlighted, merit (what I want to get out of this) and structured and governed criteria.

A simple 7 step full lifecycle evaluation process that I use for an evaluation of an architecture framework has the following steps:

Rational - Why I'm evaluating architecture frameworks and what are the key drivers. This typically will result in a set of the critical questions that need answered with some well structured criteria.
Identification - The goal of this step is to quickly and qualitatively to identify a "short list" of architecture frameworks that align to the problems we are trying to solve with the architecture framework (Step 1 - Rational). We do this by:
1. Apply the rational or value driver statements to the list of frameworks available.
2. Architecture Framework Area of Focus (discussed above) - This allows us to quickly get to a smaller set of frameworks to evaluate
3. Architecture Framework Type (discussed above) - This further cuts the list down to a finite set of frameworks.
Trade-Offs - With the short list of architecture frameworks go through a well disciplined trade-off analysis with the identification criteria above. This should identify all the change management challenges that you will encounter with people (maturity level, skills, etc.), tools / technology and process changes that will be needed. This should lead to the overall costs and benefits that address the rational subsequent value drivers.
Selection - The selection of the architecture framework with well defined implications of the decision with the criteria of selection.
Implementation - Phased implementation of the architecture framework.
Govern - Established body that governs the architecture framework health with measurements of effectiveness in the organization.
Validity - After a period of time has elapsed (sometimes yearly) a life-cycle is implemented around the architecture framework to ensure that that the organization is getting maximum value out of the framework.

Conclusion

When you are evaluating TOGAF for your needs there isn't an easy or direct answer. You have to go through a process to determine what framework is right for you. This post nor a LinkedIn forum will be able to answer that question for you. Start with what is important for your organization. Meaning, what drives value for you. If you're a government agency, it makes sense to start off with one of the popular government EA frameworks such as: DODAF, MODAF, TEAF, FEAF etc. If you are in an industry segment which has a framework defined like telecommunications then TMForum is a leading candidate.

Since TOGAF is a general purpose framework, I tend to look at TOGAF as a framework of frameworks. It is really built to be the "platform". It was designed with reusability, modularity and assembly as first class citizens. It will not give you the prescriptive process, rather it is descriptive of the areas of concern and YOU choose what is "fit for purpose" for your problem set. As I mentioned in my last post, this does add a layer of complexity but I do believe it provides the ability to come to the fastest possible value to market in an architecturally rigorous way.

If you are comparing TOGAF to FEAF or a vendor framework you are not comparing apples to apples. These architecture frameworks have different inputs and outputs in mind. Comparing TOGAF to Zachman is a closer fit. However there isn't many more general purpose frameworks that are "open source" like TOGAF. A fair comparison would be MODAF vs. FEAF or Microsoft VFR to Oracle EA Framework. These are comparing the same value drivers. But when you mix these types it causes confusion and endless debate.

If you are looking for extended information on this topic I will be writing a full whitepaper going into an extended look into the process, the framework and a EA Framework Evaluation Matrix that will compare a set of the common EA frameworks on the market based on a set of attributes (outside a specific EA organization need) in a qualitative and quantitative way. If you want a sneak peak at the drafts or you want input into the process leave a comment below.