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 |  Agile Example Mapping |  Agile Affinity Estimation |  Agile Specification by Example |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 story carries business rules and exceptions, it brings clarity before implementation. It makes examples, open questions, and boundaries visible enough that the logic becomes jointly sound. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2-5 min je Item | 30-60 min | 30-90 min | 60-90 min pro Feature |
Participantsdifferent | 3-9 | 3-7 | 3-12 | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Example Map, Acceptance Criteria, Open Questions | Affinity Size Map, Grouped Estimates, Unclear Items | Example Table, Acceptance Tests |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | Behavior-Driven DevelopmentRequirementsExamplesRefinement | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development |