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 Specification by Example |  Agile Planning Poker |  Agile Bucket System |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 business rules need to become precise, it ties language, example, and test together. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as an Example Table and Acceptance Tests. | 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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | laufend | 60-90 min pro Feature | 2-5 min je Item | 30-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-12 | 3-6 | 3-9 | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, Slicing Rules | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Bucketed Backlog, Relative Estimates, Split Candidates |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationForecastingFlow | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing |