View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Decision Making PERT Estimation |  Agile Planning Poker |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  Agile Affinity Estimation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | On complex initiatives, a plain average tends to understate just how uncertain the outcome really is. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a PERT Estimate, Expected Value, and Risk 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. | Plans often contain assumptions that were never openly stated and remain dangerous precisely because of that. Assumption Surfacing makes these silent premises visible and prioritizes which of them carry the initiative or could sink it. | When many tasks need to be classified quickly, it sorts them by perceived effort and similarity. It reduces the effort of fine-grained estimation for large volumes. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 15-45 min | 2-5 min je Item | 45-90 min | 30-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 3-9 | 2-8 | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | PERT Estimate, Expected Value, Risk Notes | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | Affinity Size Map, Grouped Estimates, Unclear Items |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationUncertaintyRisk | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing |