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 |  Agile Planning Poker |  Agile Working Agreements |  Agile Bucket System |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 estimates within the team diverge too much, it puts differing expectations on a common test bench. It separates rough complexity from unspoken assumptions. | When collaboration needs more than implicit expectations, it lays out shared ground rules openly. It creates reliability for conduct, availability, and decision paths. | When a large batch of work needs a fast, rough estimate, it sorts items into predefined size buckets. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as a Bucketed Backlog, Relative Estimates, and Split Candidates. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30-90 min | 2-5 min je Item | 45-90 min | 30-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 3-9 | 3-12 | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Affinity Size Map, Grouped Estimates, Unclear Items | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Working Agreements, Team Norms, Review Cadence | Bucketed Backlog, Relative Estimates, Split Candidates |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | TeamCollaborationAgile | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing |