View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Systems Thinking Futures Wheel |  Agile Planning Poker |  Facilitation Dot Estimation |  Agile Affinity Estimation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | The Futures Wheel helps explore the consequences of a decision, a trend, or a strategic move in a structured way. It makes visible which first, second, and third-order effects could arise from an event. | 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 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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 60-120 min | 2-5 min je Item | 5-20 min | 30-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 3-9 | 3-20 | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Futures Wheel, Consequence Chains, Strategic Signals | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, Discussion Targets | Affinity Size Map, Grouped Estimates, Unclear Items |
Tagsno overlap | ForesightSystems thinkingSignals | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | EstimationEffortRisk | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing |