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 |  Facilitation Power Interest Grid |  Agile Planning Poker |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 many stakeholders compete for attention at once, the Power Interest Grid sorts them by influence and stake. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Power Interest Grid and a stakeholder-specific strategy. | 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 an initiative depends on many people, interests, and power dynamics, Stakeholder Mapping systematically orders the environment. It shows who influences, who is affected, and where relationship management or safeguarding matters first. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30-90 min | 30-60 min | 2-5 min je Item | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 2-8 | 3-9 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Affinity Size Map, Grouped Estimates, Unclear Items | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |