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 Specification by Example |  Facilitation Power Interest Grid |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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 many stakeholders compete for attention at once, the Power Interest Grid sorts them by influence and stake. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Power Interest Grid and a stakeholder-specific strategy. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 2-5 min je Item | 1-2 h | 60-90 min pro Feature | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-9 | 4-12 | 3-6 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning |