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 NoEstimates |  Agile Affinity Estimation |  Agile Story Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 estimating slows a team down more than it helps, it shifts the focus to flow, small slices, and real lead time. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, and Slicing Rules. | 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 teams want to rate complexity rather than hours, it creates a shared, relative scale. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as Point Estimates, Reference Stories, and Velocity Data. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2-5 min je Item | laufend | 30-90 min | laufend, 1-5 min je Item |
Participantsdifferent | 3-9 | 2-12 | 3-12 | 3-9 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, Slicing Rules | Affinity Size Map, Grouped Estimates, Unclear Items | Point Estimates, Reference Stories, Velocity Data |
Tags1 shared | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | EstimationForecastingFlow | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing | EstimationAgileMeasurement |