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 Planning Poker |  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. | 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 estimates within the team diverge too much, it puts differing expectations on a common test bench. It separates rough complexity from unspoken assumptions. | 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 | Medium | Low | High |
Timedifferent | laufend | 10-30 min je Item | 2-5 min je Item | 30-90 min Setup, danach laufend |
Participantsdifferent | 2-12 | 1-8 | 3-9 | 1-8 |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, Slicing Rules | Three-Point Estimate, Risk Range, Assumption Notes | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Forecast Percentiles, Throughput Dataset, Risk Communication |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationForecastingFlow | EstimationUncertaintyForecasting | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | ForecastingFlowDelivery |