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 Specification by Example |  Agile Example Mapping |  Facilitation Responsibility Poker |  Agile Planning Poker |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 a story carries business rules and exceptions, it brings clarity before implementation. It makes examples, open questions, and boundaries visible enough that the logic becomes jointly sound. | When it stays unclear who carries responsibility and who only contributes, Responsibility Poker makes the distribution of responsibility explicit. It sharpens the boundaries between weighing in, deciding, and bearing consequences. | 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 | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 60-90 min pro Feature | 30-60 min | 45-90 min | 2-5 min je Item |
Participantsdifferent | 3-6 | 3-7 | 3-10 | 3-9 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Example Map, Acceptance Criteria, Open Questions | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates |
Tagsno overlap | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | Behavior-Driven DevelopmentRequirementsExamplesRefinement | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam |