View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Delivery Monte Carlo Forecasting |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |  Agile NoEstimates |  Facilitation Dot Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 a group needs a solid decision without outvoting individual factions, a Consensus Workshop creates a negotiable common ground. It makes agreement, reservations, and open tensions discussable at the same time. | 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 a workshop has produced too many options and the group needs to condense quickly, dot voting makes preferences visible in a short time. It bundles individual votes into a solid signal for the next selection. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 30-90 min Setup, danach laufend | 1-3 h | laufend | 5-15 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 5-30 | 2-12 | 3-20 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Forecast Percentiles, Throughput Dataset, Risk Communication | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, Slicing Rules | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist |
Tagsno overlap | ForecastingFlowDelivery | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | EstimationForecastingFlow | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization |