View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Operations ABC Analysis |  Agile NoEstimates |  Agile Story Points |  Agile Planning Poker |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | With many similar objects of differing economic significance, the method prioritizes effort by effect. It separates what needs regular steering from what rarely needs attention. | When estimating slows a team down more than it helps, it shifts the focus to flow, small slices, and real lead time. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, and Slicing Rules. | When teams want to rate complexity rather than hours, it creates a shared, relative scale. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as Point Estimates, Reference Stories, and Velocity Data. | When estimates within the team diverge too much, it puts differing expectations on a common test bench. It separates rough complexity from unspoken assumptions. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 30-60 min | laufend | laufend, 1-5 min je Item | 2-5 min je Item |
Participantsdifferent | 1-5 | 2-12 | 3-9 | 3-9 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | ABC Classification, Focus Rules, Control List | Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, Slicing Rules | Point Estimates, Reference Stories, Velocity Data | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates |
Tagsno overlap | PrioritizationOperationsPortfolio | EstimationForecastingFlow | EstimationAgileMeasurement | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam |