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 |  Operations Bottleneck Analysis |  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 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. | For a flow that backs up at one point, the method looks for the capacity limit with the greatest leverage. It explains why extra effort elsewhere barely improves throughput. | 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 | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | laufend | 30-90 min | 1-3 h | 2-5 min je Item |
Participantsdifferent | 2-12 | 3-12 | 3-8 | 3-9 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, Slicing Rules | Bucketed Backlog, Relative Estimates, Split Candidates | Bottleneck Map, Flow Metrics, Improvement Options, Follow-up Measures | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationForecastingFlow | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing | FlowMeasurementConstraints | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam |