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 |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Agile Affinity Estimation |  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. | An RFC clarifies architecture context, options, and consequences. It structures technical context, alternatives, tradeoffs, open questions, and review feedback, and captures the result as an RFC document, reviewer comments, and a decision rationale. | 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 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 | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2-5 min je Item | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 30-90 min | 30-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-9 | 3-20 Reviewer | 3-12 | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Affinity Size Map, Grouped Estimates, Unclear Items | Bucketed Backlog, Relative Estimates, Split Candidates |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing |