View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Decision Making Radar |  Agile Specification by Example |  Agile Working Agreements |  Agile Planning Poker |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When capabilities, maturity levels, or market positions need to be compared across several dimensions, overview is easily lost. Radar brings different characteristics into a shared picture and shows patterns faster than tables do. | When business rules need to become precise, it ties language, example, and test together. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as an Example Table and Acceptance Tests. | When collaboration needs more than implicit expectations, it lays out shared ground rules openly. It creates reliability for conduct, availability, and decision paths. | When estimates within the team diverge too much, it puts differing expectations on a common test bench. It separates rough complexity from unspoken assumptions. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 60-90 min pro Feature | 45-90 min | 2-5 min je Item |
Participantsdifferent | 2-10 | 3-6 | 3-12 | 3-9 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Radar Map, Capability Scores, Action Areas | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Working Agreements, Team Norms, Review Cadence | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates |
Tagsno overlap | AssessmentPortfolioCapability | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | TeamCollaborationAgile | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam |