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 |  Systems Thinking Future Reality Tree |  Agile Ideal Days |  Facilitation Dot 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. | A Future Reality Tree shows how desired actions are meant to lead to a better system state. The method checks whether a path of change holds together logically before time flows into implementation. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | High | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 2-5 min je Item | 2-4 h | 15-60 min | 5-20 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-9 | 3-8 | 2-9 | 3-20 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Future Reality Tree, Negative Branches, Assumption List, Improved Injections | Ideal Day Estimates, Assumption Notes, Capacity Caveats | Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, Discussion Targets |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | Theory of ConstraintsSystems thinkingChange | EstimationEffortAgile | EstimationEffortRisk |