View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Engineering Failure Scenario Analysis |  Decision Making Three-Point Estimation |  Agile Affinity Estimation |  Agile NoEstimates |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | In critical processes, it is not enough to plan only for the normal case. Failure Scenario Analysis looks at the path into failure and shows which failures, chains, and control gaps cause the most damage. | 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. | 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 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. |
Complexitysame | Medium | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 10-30 min je Item | 30-90 min | laufend |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 1-8 | 3-12 | 2-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Failure Scenarios, Risk Notes, Control Gaps, Test and Response Actions | Three-Point Estimate, Risk Range, Assumption Notes | Affinity Size Map, Grouped Estimates, Unclear Items | Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, Slicing Rules |
Tagsno overlap | FailureResilienceRisk | EstimationUncertaintyForecasting | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing | EstimationForecastingFlow |