View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Facilitation Dot Estimation |  Agile Planning Poker |  Agile Working Agreements |  Decision Making PERT Estimation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When size or effort can only be estimated roughly, Dot Estimation condenses the group's experience into a quick range. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as an Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, and Discussion Targets. | 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 collaboration needs more than implicit expectations, it lays out shared ground rules openly. It creates reliability for conduct, availability, and decision paths. | On complex initiatives, a plain average tends to understate just how uncertain the outcome really is. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a PERT Estimate, Expected Value, and Risk Notes. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 5-20 min | 2-5 min je Item | 45-90 min | 15-45 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 | 3-9 | 3-12 | 1-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, Discussion Targets | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Working Agreements, Team Norms, Review Cadence | PERT Estimate, Expected Value, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationEffortRisk | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | TeamCollaborationAgile | EstimationUncertaintyRisk |