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 |  Agile Affinity Estimation |  Delivery Monte Carlo Forecasting |  Agile NoEstimates |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2-5 min je Item | 30-90 min | 30-90 min Setup, danach laufend | laufend |
Participantsdifferent | 3-9 | 3-12 | 1-8 | 2-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Affinity Size Map, Grouped Estimates, Unclear Items | Forecast Percentiles, Throughput Dataset, Risk Communication | Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, Slicing Rules |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing | ForecastingFlowDelivery | EstimationForecastingFlow |