methodatlas
Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Criterion
Paper illustration for Bucket System.
Agile
Bucket System
Paper illustration of shared options, independently placed voting dots, and a highlighted shortlist.
Facilitation
Dot Voting
Paper illustration for Planning Poker.
Agile
Planning Poker
Paper illustration of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
Purposedifferent
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.When a workshop has produced too many options and the group needs to condense quickly, dot voting makes preferences visible in a short time. It bundles individual votes into a solid signal for the next selection.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 a group needs a solid decision without outvoting individual factions, a Consensus Workshop creates a negotiable common ground. It makes agreement, reservations, and open tensions discussable at the same time.
Complexitydifferent
MediumLowLowMedium
Timedifferent
30-90 min5-15 min2-5 min je Item1-3 h
Participantsdifferent
3-123-203-95-30
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Bucketed Backlog, Relative Estimates, Split CandidatesRanked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistRelative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split CandidatesConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas
Tagsno overlap
EstimationBacklogRelative sizing
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
Add more methods