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 Stakeholder Mapping |  Agile Planning Poker |  Facilitation Alignment 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 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. | 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 several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30-90 min | 60–90 min | 2-5 min je Item | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 2-8 | 3-9 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Affinity Size Map, Grouped Estimates, Unclear Items | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation |