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 Planning Poker |  Product Strategy DIBB |  Agile Affinity Estimation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 estimates within the team diverge too much, it puts differing expectations on a common test bench. It separates rough complexity from unspoken assumptions. | DIBB helps clarify target groups, value, goals, and priorities by making the logic behind a decision explicit. It captures results as a DIBB document, belief list, bet list, and learning report. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | laufend | 2-5 min je Item | 1-2 h | 30-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-12 | 3-9 | 2-8 | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, Slicing Rules | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning report | Affinity Size Map, Grouped Estimates, Unclear Items |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationForecastingFlow | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing |