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 Three Amigos |  Agile Specification by Example |  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. | When story, test, and implementation could drift apart, it brings business perspective, engineering, and quality together early. It prevents a story from being read differently only late in the process. | When business rules need to become precise, it ties language, example, and test together. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as an Example Table and Acceptance Tests. | 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 | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 30-90 min | 15-30 min | 60-90 min pro Feature | 2-5 min je Item |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 3 | 3-6 | 3-9 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Affinity Size Map, Grouped Estimates, Unclear Items | Clarified Story, Test Examples, Open Questions | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing | CollaborationBehavior-Driven DevelopmentQualityRefinement | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam |