In this paper we describe the results of a replication study for comparing the effectiveness, efficiency and perceived utility of the quality-driven product architecture derivation and improvement method (QuaDAI), an architecture derivation and evaluation method that we presented in recent works, as opposed to the Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method (ATAM), a well-known architectural evaluation method used in industry. The results of the original experiment (conducted with undergraduate students) showed that QuaDAI was found to be more efficient and was perceived as easier to use than ATAM. However, although QuaDAI performed better than ATAM, we could not confirm the other variables, as the differences between both methods were not statistically significant. Therefore the goal of the replication was to verify these findings with a group of more experienced students. In the replication study QuaDAI also performed better than ATAM, but as opposed to the original study, all the variables proved to be statistically significant.