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 |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |  Agile Affinity Estimation |  Facilitation Expectation Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 an initiative depends on many people, interests, and power dynamics, Stakeholder Mapping systematically orders the environment. It shows who influences, who is affected, and where relationship management or safeguarding matters first. | 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 roles, interfaces, or projects fail because of differing expectations, Expectation Mapping surfaces these differences. It shows what each side takes for granted and where the pictures diverge. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 2-5 min je Item | 60–90 min | 30-90 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-9 | 2-8 | 3-12 | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Affinity Size Map, Grouped Estimates, Unclear Items | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam |