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 Story Points |  Agile Planning Poker |  Operations Bottleneck Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 teams want to rate complexity rather than hours, it creates a shared, relative scale. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as Point Estimates, Reference Stories, and Velocity Data. | When estimates within the team diverge too much, it puts differing expectations on a common test bench. It separates rough complexity from unspoken assumptions. | For a flow that backs up at one point, the method looks for the capacity limit with the greatest leverage. It explains why extra effort elsewhere barely improves throughput. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | laufend | laufend, 1-5 min je Item | 2-5 min je Item | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 2-12 | 3-9 | 3-9 | 3-8 |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, Slicing Rules | Point Estimates, Reference Stories, Velocity Data | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Bottleneck Map, Flow Metrics, Improvement Options, Follow-up Measures |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationForecastingFlow | EstimationAgileMeasurement | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | FlowMeasurementConstraints |