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 |  Decision Making Three-Point Estimation |  Agile Bucket System |  Agile Planning Poker |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | 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. | When estimates within the team diverge too much, it puts differing expectations on a common test bench. It separates rough complexity from unspoken assumptions. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | laufend | 10-30 min je Item | 30-90 min | 2-5 min je Item |
Participantsdifferent | 2-12 | 1-8 | 3-12 | 3-9 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, Slicing Rules | Three-Point Estimate, Risk Range, Assumption Notes | Bucketed Backlog, Relative Estimates, Split Candidates | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates |
Tags1 shared | EstimationForecastingFlow | EstimationUncertaintyForecasting | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam |