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 Example Mapping |  Agile T-Shirt Sizing |  Agile Planning Poker |  Agile Specification by Example |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a story carries business rules and exceptions, it brings clarity before implementation. It makes examples, open questions, and boundaries visible enough that the logic becomes jointly sound. | When effort only needs to be classified roughly, it makes comparability more important than false precision. It helps sort work quickly into manageable sizes. | 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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30-60 min | 15-45 min | 2-5 min je Item | 60-90 min pro Feature |
Participantsdifferent | 3-7 | 2-12 | 3-9 | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Example Map, Acceptance Criteria, Open Questions | Size Buckets, Rough Backlog Map, Split Candidates | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Example Table, Acceptance Tests |
Tagsno overlap | Behavior-Driven DevelopmentRequirementsExamplesRefinement | EstimationAgileRoadmap | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development |