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 |  Delivery Monte Carlo Forecasting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | High |
Timedifferent | laufend | 2-5 min je Item | 5-20 min | 30-90 min Setup, danach laufend |
Participantsdifferent | 2-12 | 3-9 | 3-20 | 1-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, Slicing Rules | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, Discussion Targets | Forecast Percentiles, Throughput Dataset, Risk Communication |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationForecastingFlow | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | EstimationEffortRisk | ForecastingFlowDelivery |