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 Planning Poker |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Agile Affinity Estimation |  Architecture Request for Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When estimates within the team diverge too much, it puts differing expectations on a common test bench. It separates rough complexity from unspoken assumptions. | An ADR permanently records an architecture decision with context, trade-offs, and consequence. It creates continuity for later changes because the decision path stays traceable. | 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. | An RFC clarifies architecture context, options, and consequences. It structures technical context, alternatives, tradeoffs, open questions, and review feedback, and captures the result as an RFC document, reviewer comments, and a decision rationale. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2-5 min je Item | 15-45 min | 30-90 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 3-9 | 1-3 | 3-12 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Affinity Size Map, Grouped Estimates, Unclear Items | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |