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 |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  Delivery Monte Carlo Forecasting |
|---|---|---|---|
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. | ATAM helps teams weigh architecture decisions when quality goals compete. The team considers business goals, stakeholder expectations, and technical decisions together. The evaluation shows which risks need further investigation. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | High |
Timedifferent | laufend | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 30-90 min Setup, danach laufend |
Participantsdifferent | 2-12 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 1-8 |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, Slicing Rules | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Forecast Percentiles, Throughput Dataset, Risk Communication |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationForecastingFlow | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | ForecastingFlowDelivery |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
