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 |  Delivery Monte Carlo Forecasting |  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. | 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. | 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 | 30-90 min Setup, danach laufend | 2-5 min je Item |
Participantsdifferent | 2-12 | 3-12 | 1-8 | 3-9 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, Slicing Rules | Bucketed Backlog, Relative Estimates, Split Candidates | Forecast Percentiles, Throughput Dataset, Risk Communication | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationForecastingFlow | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing | ForecastingFlowDelivery | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam |