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 NoEstimates |  Growth A/B Testing |  Facilitation Dot Estimation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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 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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 15-60 min | laufend | 1-4 Wochen | 5-20 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-9 | 2-12 | 1-6 | 3-20 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Ideal Day Estimates, Assumption Notes, Capacity Caveats | Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, Slicing Rules | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, Discussion Targets |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationEffortAgile | EstimationForecastingFlow | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | EstimationEffortRisk |