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 |  Decision Making Three-Point 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. | A single estimate for effort, time, or risk often looks too smooth for the real uncertainty behind it. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a Three-Point Estimate, Risk Range, and Assumption Notes. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | laufend | 2-5 min je Item | 10-30 min je Item |
Participantsdifferent | 2-12 | 3-9 | 1-8 |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, Slicing Rules | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Three-Point Estimate, Risk Range, Assumption Notes |
Tags1 shared | EstimationForecastingFlow | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | EstimationUncertaintyForecasting |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
