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 |  Delivery Monte Carlo Forecasting |  Agile NoEstimates |  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. | Helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, boundaries, and order steerable. The result is captured as Forecast Percentiles, Throughput Dataset, and Risk Communication. | 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. | 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 | 30-90 min Setup, danach laufend | laufend | 2-5 min je Item |
Participantsdifferent | 2-9 | 1-8 | 2-12 | 3-9 |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Ideal Day Estimates, Assumption Notes, Capacity Caveats | Forecast Percentiles, Throughput Dataset, Risk Communication | Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, Slicing Rules | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationEffortAgile | ForecastingFlowDelivery | EstimationForecastingFlow | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam |