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 |  Agile Specification by Example |  Agile Bucket System |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | When business rules need to become precise, it ties language, example, and test together. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as an Example Table and Acceptance Tests. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2-5 min je Item | 30-90 min | 60-90 min pro Feature | 30-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-9 | 3-12 | 3-6 | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Affinity Size Map, Grouped Estimates, Unclear Items | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Bucketed Backlog, Relative Estimates, Split Candidates |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing |