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 |  Operations Learning Review |  Agile 4Ls Retrospective |  Agile Planning Poker |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | After a project phase with mixed results, the method makes learning from the individual case reusable. It connects events, decisions, and systemic conditions into robust insights. | When a sprint should not only be assessed but also learned from, it captures experience in clear learning categories. It records what worked, what's missing, and what should run differently next time. | 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 | Medium | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30-90 min | 1-3 h | 45–75 min | 2-5 min je Item |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 3-10 | Team members involved | 3-9 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Affinity Size Map, Grouped Estimates, Unclear Items | Learning Review Notes, System Factors, Improvement Actions | 4Ls Board, Learning Themes, Improvement Actions | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing | LearningRetrospectiveIncidentOperations | RetrospectiveLearningReflectionTeam | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam |