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 Dot Estimation |  Growth A/B Testing |  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 size or effort can only be estimated roughly, Dot Estimation condenses the group's experience into a quick range. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as an Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, and Discussion Targets. | When two variants compete, discussions quickly decide by taste rather than effect. A/B Testing checks behavior under controlled conditions and separates real improvement from chance or expectation effects. | 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 | Low | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2-5 min je Item | 5-20 min | 1-4 Wochen | 30-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-9 | 3-20 | 1-6 | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, Discussion Targets | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Affinity Size Map, Grouped Estimates, Unclear Items |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | EstimationEffortRisk | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing |