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 |  Decision Making PERT Estimation |  Agile Affinity Estimation |  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. | On complex initiatives, a plain average tends to understate just how uncertain the outcome really is. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a PERT Estimate, Expected Value, and Risk Notes. | 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 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 | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 60-90 min pro Feature | 15-45 min | 30-90 min | 2-5 min je Item |
Participantsdifferent | 3-6 | 1-8 | 3-12 | 3-9 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | PERT Estimate, Expected Value, Risk Notes | Affinity Size Map, Grouped Estimates, Unclear Items | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates |
Tagsno overlap | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | EstimationUncertaintyRisk | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam |