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 |  Agile Affinity Estimation |  Product Strategy DIBB |  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 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. | DIBB helps clarify target groups, value, goals, and priorities by making the logic behind a decision explicit. It captures results as a DIBB document, belief list, bet list, and learning report. | 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 | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 15-60 min | 30-90 min | 1-2 h | 2-5 min je Item |
Participantsdifferent | 2-9 | 3-12 | 2-8 | 3-9 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Ideal Day Estimates, Assumption Notes, Capacity Caveats | Affinity Size Map, Grouped Estimates, Unclear Items | DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning report | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationEffortAgile | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing | StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam |