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 Consensus Workshop |  Facilitation Nominal Group Technique |  Agile Affinity Estimation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 a group needs a solid decision without outvoting individual factions, a Consensus Workshop creates a negotiable common ground. It makes agreement, reservations, and open tensions discussable at the same time. | 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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2-5 min je Item | 1-3 h | 60-120 min | 30-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-9 | 5-30 | 5-12 | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Ranked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group Priority | Affinity Size Map, Grouped Estimates, Unclear Items |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing |