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 |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  Agile Affinity Estimation |  Product Strategy DIBB |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | Plans often contain assumptions that were never openly stated and remain dangerous precisely because of that. Assumption Surfacing makes these silent premises visible and prioritizes which of them carry the initiative or could sink it. | 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. | DIBB helps clarify target groups, value, goals, and priorities by making the logic behind a decision explicit. It captures results as a DIBB document, belief list, bet list, and learning report. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 2-5 min je Item | 45-90 min | 30-90 min | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-9 | 2-8 | 3-12 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | Affinity Size Map, Grouped Estimates, Unclear Items | DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning report |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing | StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis |