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 |  Engineering Kanban |  Agile Planning Poker |  Delivery Monte Carlo Forecasting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 sits in too many parallel streams, throughput suffers and no one sees the bottlenecks. Kanban makes the flow of work visible and limits overload so a system becomes calmer and more predictable. | When estimates within the team diverge too much, it puts differing expectations on a common test bench. It separates rough complexity from unspoken assumptions. | Helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, boundaries, and order steerable. The result is captured as Forecast Percentiles, Throughput Dataset, and Risk Communication. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 30-90 min | Ongoing | 2-5 min je Item | 30-90 min Setup, danach laufend |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 2-12 | 3-9 | 1-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Affinity Size Map, Grouped Estimates, Unclear Items | Kanban board, WIP policies, Flow metrics | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Forecast Percentiles, Throughput Dataset, Risk Communication |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing | FlowVisual managementDelivery | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | ForecastingFlowDelivery |