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 |  Delivery Monte Carlo Forecasting |  Agile Bucket System |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | Helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, boundaries, and order steerable. The result is captured as Forecast Percentiles, Throughput Dataset, and Risk Communication. | When a large batch of work needs a fast, rough estimate, it sorts items into predefined size buckets. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as a Bucketed Backlog, Relative Estimates, and Split Candidates. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2-5 min je Item | laufend | 30-90 min Setup, danach laufend | 30-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-9 | 2-12 | 1-8 | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, Slicing Rules | Forecast Percentiles, Throughput Dataset, Risk Communication | Bucketed Backlog, Relative Estimates, Split Candidates |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | EstimationForecastingFlow | ForecastingFlowDelivery | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing |