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 Ideal Days |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 effort needs to be thought of as real working time, it offers a simple common denominator for comparison. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as Ideal Day Estimates, Assumption Notes, and Capacity Caveats. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 2-5 min je Item | 5-20 min | 1-4 Wochen | 15-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-9 | 3-20 | 1-6 | 2-9 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, Discussion Targets | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Ideal Day Estimates, Assumption Notes, Capacity Caveats |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | EstimationEffortRisk | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | EstimationEffortAgile |