The business model canvas asks different questions. So, you will not find "Why do we exist?" "What's the purpose of this endeavor" in the business model canvas. You will also not find architectural questions. There's some "What resources do we need?". But it doesn't ask "Which capabilities?", how they fit together, how they decompose, or how they relate to assets.
There are situations where the business model canvas questions are spot on, and there are other situations where they are not, and you see that there's not just the business model canvas right there.
Many, many canvases are now out there because, like us, it's not software; it is a language and the documentation and the model; they are open source; they are out there, you can take them, you can modify them, you can republish them under the same creative commons license. This language was insufficient for many situations we find ourselves in as Enterprise Business Architects, organization designers, etc.
Now, when it comes to ArchiMate, I have tried many times and sometimes successfully used ArchiMate for Enterprise Design. One example: Instead of business collaboration, we said: okay, this is a touch point. Instead of a process, we said this is a journey, etc. So we repurposed all the ArchiMate elements to fit the experience domain that is just missing from ArchiMate, which is one way to do it. But it's not really what the language is made for.
Archimate is about making a model with about 30 elements and with a very rigorous set of relations and rules that are there to ensure that the model is architecturally sound. This makes sense if you want to implement a complex operational, largely it-landscape. This is not the challenge that many Enterprise Design Practitioners face.
We ask, "How should we operate?" "What changes do we need to make to the process?" given that the customer journey now includes that people talk to Chat GBT or whatever. Or we want to become sustainable - we made our logo green, but it's not enough. We need to look at the supply chain.
ArchiMate lacks some of these elements and is too rigorous in its relations and the complexity of the language makes it hard to adopt by people, who are not from the architecture background, for example leadership coaches, leadership teams, HR, managers, and executives.