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 |  Decision Making Three-Point Estimation |  Delivery Monte Carlo Forecasting |  Agile Affinity Estimation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | A single estimate for effort, time, or risk often looks too smooth for the real uncertainty behind it. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a Three-Point Estimate, Risk Range, and Assumption Notes. | 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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2-5 min je Item | 10-30 min je Item | 30-90 min Setup, danach laufend | 30-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-9 | 1-8 | 1-8 | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Three-Point Estimate, Risk Range, Assumption Notes | Forecast Percentiles, Throughput Dataset, Risk Communication | Affinity Size Map, Grouped Estimates, Unclear Items |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | EstimationUncertaintyForecasting | ForecastingFlowDelivery | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing |