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 MoSCoW |  Agile Planning Poker |  Facilitation Dot Estimation |  Agile Affinity Estimation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a release carries too many demands and priorities are only ever negotiated, MoSCoW creates clear boundaries for the next cut. Must, Should, Could, and Won't make commitment, room for maneuver, and trade-off logic visible to everyone involved. | When estimates within the team diverge too much, it puts differing expectations on a common test bench. It separates rough complexity from unspoken assumptions. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30-90 min | 2-5 min je Item | 5-20 min | 30-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 3-9 | 3-20 | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Prioritized Backlog, Release Scope, Tradeoff Notes | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, Discussion Targets | Affinity Size Map, Grouped Estimates, Unclear Items |
Tagsno overlap | PrioritizationScopeDecision | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | EstimationEffortRisk | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing |