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 Sailboat Retrospective |  Agile Planning Poker |  Agile Starfish Retrospective |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 a team wants to read momentum, brakes, and risks together, it offers an easily understandable picture of the situation. It makes drive, obstacles, and headwind visible in the same picture. | 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 improvement options need to be sorted more finely than just start and stop, it brings observations into clear kinds of action. This makes visible what should be done more, less, newly, or continued. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30-90 min | 45-90 min | 2-5 min je Item | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 4-12 | 3-9 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Affinity Size Map, Grouped Estimates, Unclear Items | Sailboat Board, Risks, Improvement Actions | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Starfish Board, Practice Changes, Experiments |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing | RetrospectiveTeamImprovement | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | RetrospectiveImprovementExperimentsTeam |