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 Ideal Days |  Growth A/B Testing |
|---|---|---|---|
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 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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 2-5 min je Item | 15-60 min | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 3-9 | 2-9 | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Ideal Day Estimates, Assumption Notes, Capacity Caveats | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | EstimationEffortAgile | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
