What are the main enterprise architecture frameworks?

The five most widely referenced enterprise architecture frameworks are TOGAF (a method built around the Architecture Development Method), the Zachman Framework (a taxonomy that classifies architecture artefacts), FEAF (the US federal government framework), the Gartner EA practice (a business-outcome-driven approach) and DoDAF (for large defence and aerospace systems). They differ in nature, so they are not strictly interchangeable.

What is the difference between TOGAF and Zachman?

TOGAF is a method: it tells you how to develop and govern an architecture through the phases of its Architecture Development Method. Zachman is a taxonomy: a 6x6 matrix that tells you what to document by classifying artefacts across six perspectives and six fundamental questions. In short, Zachman defines what to capture and TOGAF defines how to do the work, which is why many teams use them together.

Is TOGAF or Zachman better?

Neither is better in the abstract because they solve different problems. If you need a repeatable process for running architecture work, TOGAF fits; if you need a complete classification scheme to organise and audit your documentation, Zachman fits. They are complementary rather than competing, and blending them — TOGAF as the process, Zachman as the completeness check — is common in mature practices.

Which enterprise architecture framework should a government agency use?

Sector often decides this. US federal civilian agencies are generally expected to use FEAF, which is business-driven and focused on reducing duplication and enabling shared services. Defence, military and aerospace organisations typically use DoDAF, which provides the detailed viewpoints needed for large, mission-critical systems. Where no framework is mandated, agencies still frequently layer TOGAF or Zachman on top.

Can you use more than one enterprise architecture framework at once?

Yes, and most mature organisations do. A common pattern is to run TOGAF’s ADM as the delivery method while using the Zachman matrix to verify that artefacts cover every perspective, and to keep a Gartner-style focus on business outcomes throughout. These frameworks are complementary and also coexist with adjacent frameworks such as COBIT and ITIL, so blending is normal rather than a compromise.

What is the Gartner approach to enterprise architecture?

The Gartner enterprise architecture practice is business-outcome-driven rather than a fixed framework of layers or matrices. It starts from business strategy and desired outcomes, then builds only the architecture needed to achieve them, managing change in small, clear increments. It emphasises agility and tight coupling between IT and business value, which makes it popular with fast-moving commercial organisations.

Enterprise Architecture Frameworks: TOGAF vs Zachman

An enterprise architecture framework is a structured way to describe, plan and govern how an organisation’s business capabilities, information, applications and technology fit together and evolve. It gives architects a shared vocabulary, a set of viewpoints and, in many cases, a step-by-step process so that strategy, IT investment and delivery all point in the same direction. The confusion most teams run into is that the best-known enterprise architecture frameworks are not really the same kind of thing: some are a method for doing the work, some are a taxonomy for classifying it, and some are mandated standards for a particular sector. Understanding that distinction is the fastest way to choose well.

The major enterprise architecture frameworks at a glance

Five frameworks dominate the conversation. Before we go deep on each, here is how they differ in nature and typical home (The Open Group, 2026; Enterprise Architecture Work, 2024):

TOGAF (The Open Group): a method and framework built around the Architecture Development Method (ADM), a repeatable cycle for developing architecture. The most widely adopted option across commercial enterprises.
Zachman Framework: a taxonomy or ontology — a 6x6 classification matrix for organising architecture artefacts. It tells you what to document, not how to do the work.
FEAF (Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework): a business-driven framework created for and largely mandated across US federal government agencies to reduce duplication and enable shared services.
Gartner EA practice: less a fixed framework and more a business-outcome-driven advisory approach that starts with strategy and builds architecture to fit, favouring agility over prescribed layers.
DoDAF (Department of Defense Architecture Framework): a viewpoint-heavy framework for large, complex defence, military and aerospace systems.

TOGAF: a method for doing architecture

TOGAF, maintained by The Open Group, is the most widely used enterprise architecture framework and, crucially, it is a methodology as much as a framework. Its centrepiece is the Architecture Development Method, or ADM — a circular process that guides architects from a preliminary setup phase through architecture vision, business, information systems and technology architecture, then on to opportunities and solutions, migration planning, implementation governance and change management. Each phase produces concrete deliverables such as capability maps, application portfolios and technology roadmaps, with requirements management sitting at the centre of the cycle (The Open Group, 2026).

Because TOGAF tells you how to run an architecture engagement end to end, it is the natural default for organisations that want a repeatable operating rhythm rather than a one-off diagram. If you are standing up an architecture practice from scratch, our guide on enterprise-architecture-practical-implementation walks through how the ADM phases translate into real deliverables, and if certification is on your radar, togaf-certification-path-realistic sets out what the Foundation and Practitioner levels actually demand.

Zachman: a taxonomy for classifying architecture

The Zachman Framework, first published by John Zachman in the 1980s, is a very different animal. It is a two-dimensional classification schema — a 6x6 matrix of 36 cells — not a process. The columns represent the six fundamental questions you can ask about any enterprise (what, how, where, who, when and why), and the rows represent stakeholder perspectives, from the planner and owner at the top through the designer and builder to the detailed technical view. Each cell holds a distinct type of descriptive artefact (Enterprise Architecture Work, 2024).

Zachman does not tell you how to produce those artefacts, in what order, or when the work is done. What it gives you is completeness: a way to see, at a glance, which perspectives and which questions your documentation covers and where the gaps are. Teams use it as a checklist and a filing system for architecture knowledge, which is why it pairs so naturally with a delivery method rather than competing with one.

FEAF, Gartner and DoDAF: sector and style fits

The remaining three frameworks are best understood by context. FEAF, the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework, was developed for the US federal government to improve planning, cut system overlap and support shared services across agencies. It is business-driven and heavily focused on performance, service delivery and investment management, and it is effectively mandated in much of the US public sector (Enterprise Architecture Work, 2024).

The Gartner approach sits at the opposite end of the formality spectrum. Rather than prescribing fixed layers or matrices, it is a business-outcome-driven practice: start with the business strategy and desired outcomes, then build only the architecture needed to get there, managing change in small, clear increments. It suits private-sector organisations in fast-moving industries such as finance, manufacturing and retail that want IT tightly coupled to business value. If that agile, outcome-first philosophy appeals to you, our agile-enterprise-architecture guide explains how to keep architecture lightweight without losing rigour.

DoDAF, the Department of Defense Architecture Framework, was created for the US Department of Defense to describe and control very large, sensitive, mission-critical systems. It is organised around a rich set of viewpoints — operational, systems, services and more — and is the natural fit for defence, military and aerospace programmes where traceability and detail are non-negotiable (Enterprise Architecture Work, 2024).

TOGAF vs Zachman: the distinction that matters most

If you remember only one thing about enterprise architecture frameworks, make it this: Zachman defines what to document and TOGAF defines how to do the work. Zachman is a taxonomy that classifies the artefacts of an enterprise into a complete matrix of perspectives and questions; TOGAF is a method that takes you through the phases of actually producing and governing an architecture. One is a map of the territory, the other is a route through it.

Despite how often they are pitched as rivals, TOGAF and Zachman do not conflict — they are widely regarded as complementary, and many organisations use Zachman as the classification scheme for the deliverables that TOGAF’s ADM produces. The same sources note that both can sit alongside adjacent frameworks such as COBIT, ITIL and PRINCE2 rather than replacing them (KnowledgeHut / BMC, 2026).

This is why the "TOGAF versus Zachman" question is often the wrong one. You can adopt the ADM as your process and use the Zachman matrix to check that the artefacts you generate cover every stakeholder view and every fundamental question. The two answer different halves of the same problem.

How to choose — and can you combine them?

Choosing an enterprise architecture framework is less about finding the single "best" one and more about matching a framework’s nature to your context. Here is the practical sequence we recommend:

Start with sector constraints. If you are a US federal agency, FEAF is likely mandated; in defence or aerospace, DoDAF is the natural and often required fit. This can settle the decision before you weigh anything else.
Decide what you actually lack. If you need a repeatable process for running architecture work, reach for a method like TOGAF; if you have process but messy, incomplete documentation, reach for a taxonomy like Zachman.
Match the framework to your culture. Heavyweight, phase-driven governance suits regulated, change-averse organisations; a business-outcome-driven Gartner-style approach suits fast-moving commercial teams that value agility.
Combine deliberately, not accidentally. Use TOGAF’s ADM as the engine and Zachman as the completeness check on its outputs; blending is the norm, not a compromise.
Right-size the ambition. Adopt only the phases, viewpoints and artefacts that earn their keep, and grow the practice as it proves value rather than importing an entire framework on day one.
Tie it to governance. Whichever framework you land on, connect its outputs to decision rights and investment control so the architecture actually influences what gets built.

Most mature practices end up blending frameworks rather than adopting one in its pure form — a TOGAF-based method, a Zachman-style classification for artefacts, and a Gartner-like insistence on business outcomes, all wired into governance. If you want the governance side to hold, our it-governance-practical-operating-model guide shows how architecture decisions connect to funding and accountability. The goal is not framework purity; it is an architecture practice that makes better, faster decisions about where the enterprise spends its money and effort.