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 |  Product Strategy DIBB |
|---|---|---|---|
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. | DIBB helps clarify target groups, value, goals, and priorities by making the logic behind a decision explicit. It captures results as a DIBB document, belief list, bet list, and learning report. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 2-5 min je Item | laufend | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-9 | 2-12 | 2-8 |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, Slicing Rules | DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning report |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | EstimationForecastingFlow | StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
