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 |  Facilitation Dot Estimation |  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. | When size or effort can only be estimated roughly, Dot Estimation condenses the group's experience into a quick range. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as an Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, and Discussion Targets. | 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 | 5-20 min | 30-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-12 | 3-9 | 3-20 | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, Slicing Rules | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, Discussion Targets | Affinity Size Map, Grouped Estimates, Unclear Items |
Tags1 shared | EstimationForecastingFlow | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | EstimationEffortRisk | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing |