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 Bucket System |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |  Growth A/B Testing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 a large batch of work needs a fast, rough estimate, it sorts items into predefined size buckets. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as a Bucketed Backlog, Relative Estimates, and Split Candidates. | When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | laufend | 30-90 min | 45-60 min | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 2-12 | 3-12 | 2-8 | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, Slicing Rules | Bucketed Backlog, Relative Estimates, Split Candidates | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationForecastingFlow | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |