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 |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Agile Affinity Estimation |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable. | 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 an initiative depends on many people, interests, and power dynamics, Stakeholder Mapping systematically orders the environment. It shows who influences, who is affected, and where relationship management or safeguarding matters first. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 2-5 min je Item | 1-2 h | 30-90 min | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-9 | 4-12 | 3-12 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Affinity Size Map, Grouped Estimates, Unclear Items | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |