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 |  Agile Story Points |  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 teams want to rate complexity rather than hours, it creates a shared, relative scale. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as Point Estimates, Reference Stories, and Velocity Data. | 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 | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 60-90 min pro Feature | 30-60 min | laufend, 1-5 min je Item | 2-5 min je Item |
Participantsdifferent | 3-6 | 3-7 | 3-9 | 3-9 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Example Map, Acceptance Criteria, Open Questions | Point Estimates, Reference Stories, Velocity Data | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates |
Tagsno overlap | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | Behavior-Driven DevelopmentRequirementsExamplesRefinement | EstimationAgileMeasurement | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam |