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 Ideal Days |  Growth A/B Testing |  Agile Affinity Estimation |  Agile Planning Poker |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When effort needs to be thought of as real working time, it offers a simple common denominator for comparison. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as Ideal Day Estimates, Assumption Notes, and Capacity Caveats. | When two variants compete, discussions quickly decide by taste rather than effect. A/B Testing checks behavior under controlled conditions and separates real improvement from chance or expectation effects. | 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 estimates within the team diverge too much, it puts differing expectations on a common test bench. It separates rough complexity from unspoken assumptions. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | High | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 15-60 min | 1-4 Wochen | 30-90 min | 2-5 min je Item |
Participantsdifferent | 2-9 | 1-6 | 3-12 | 3-9 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Ideal Day Estimates, Assumption Notes, Capacity Caveats | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Affinity Size Map, Grouped Estimates, Unclear Items | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationEffortAgile | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam |