View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Agile Affinity Estimation |  UX Research Contextual Inquiry |  Agile Planning Poker |  Agile T-Shirt Sizing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When many tasks need to be classified quickly, it sorts them by perceived effort and similarity. It reduces the effort of fine-grained estimation for large volumes. | When work processes are known only from accounts and the real context stays hidden, Contextual Inquiry makes behavior at the workplace visible. Observation and follow-up questions together show how people actually work, get interrupted, and improvise. | When estimates within the team diverge too much, it puts differing expectations on a common test bench. It separates rough complexity from unspoken assumptions. | When effort only needs to be classified roughly, it makes comparability more important than false precision. It helps sort work quickly into manageable sizes. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30-90 min | 1-3 Wochen | 2-5 min je Item | 15-45 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 4-12 Beobachtungen | 3-9 | 2-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Affinity Size Map, Grouped Estimates, Unclear Items | Field Notes, Workflow Insights, Pain Points | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Size Buckets, Rough Backlog Map, Split Candidates |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing | UX researchObservationContext | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | EstimationAgileRoadmap |