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 |  Facilitation Dot Estimation |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |
|---|---|---|---|
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 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. | ATAM helps teams weigh architecture decisions when quality goals compete. The team considers business goals, stakeholder expectations, and technical decisions together. The evaluation shows which risks need further investigation. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 15-60 min | 5-20 min | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | 2-9 | 3-20 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Ideal Day Estimates, Assumption Notes, Capacity Caveats | Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, Discussion Targets | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationEffortAgile | EstimationEffortRisk | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
