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 Voting |  Agile NoEstimates |  Decision Making Three-Point Estimation |  Decision Making PERT Estimation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 estimating slows a team down more than it helps, it shifts the focus to flow, small slices, and real lead time. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, and Slicing Rules. | A single estimate for effort, time, or risk often looks too smooth for the real uncertainty behind it. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a Three-Point Estimate, Risk Range, and Assumption Notes. | 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 | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 5-15 min | laufend | 10-30 min je Item | 15-45 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 | 2-12 | 1-8 | 1-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, Slicing Rules | Three-Point Estimate, Risk Range, Assumption Notes | PERT Estimate, Expected Value, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | EstimationForecastingFlow | EstimationUncertaintyForecasting | EstimationUncertaintyRisk |