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 Planning Poker |  Agile Affinity Estimation |  Agile Example Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 estimates within the team diverge too much, it puts differing expectations on a common test bench. It separates rough complexity from unspoken assumptions. | 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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 60-90 min pro Feature | 2-5 min je Item | 30-90 min | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-6 | 3-9 | 3-12 | 3-7 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Affinity Size Map, Grouped Estimates, Unclear Items | Example Map, Acceptance Criteria, Open Questions |
Tagsno overlap | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing | Behavior-Driven DevelopmentRequirementsExamplesRefinement |