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 NoEstimates |  Agile Affinity Estimation |  Decision Making Wideband Delphi |  Agile Planning Poker |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 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. | A single opinion rarely holds up for planning when the future is genuinely uncertain. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as an Estimate Range, Assumption Log, and Expert Consensus Notes. | 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 | Medium | Medium | High | Low |
Timedifferent | laufend | 30-90 min | 1-4 h or multiple rounds | 2-5 min je Item |
Participantsdifferent | 2-12 | 3-12 | 4-12 Experten | 3-9 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, Slicing Rules | Affinity Size Map, Grouped Estimates, Unclear Items | Estimate Range, Assumption Log, Expert Consensus Notes | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates |
Tags1 shared | EstimationForecastingFlow | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing | EstimationExpertsForecasting | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam |