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 |  Facilitation Dot 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 size or effort can only be estimated roughly, Dot Estimation condenses the group's experience into a quick range. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as an Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, and Discussion Targets. | 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 | 60-90 min pro Feature | 15-45 min | 5-20 min | 2-5 min je Item |
Participantsdifferent | 3-6 | 1-8 | 3-20 | 3-9 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | PERT Estimate, Expected Value, Risk Notes | Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, Discussion Targets | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates |
Tagsno overlap | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | EstimationUncertaintyRisk | EstimationEffortRisk | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam |