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 |  Facilitation Nominal Group Technique |  Facilitation Expectation 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 loud voices could dominate a round, Nominal Group Technique protects individual thinking time from group effects. It collects ideas separately first and only then enables shared weighting. | When roles, interfaces, or projects fail because of differing expectations, Expectation Mapping surfaces these differences. It shows what each side takes for granted and where the pictures diverge. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 2-5 min je Item | 1-2 h | 60-120 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-9 | 4-12 | 5-12 | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam |