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 Scrum |  Agile Working Agreements |  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 team needs to work in a fixed delivery rhythm, it stabilizes cadence, responsibility, and feedback loops. It makes collaboration reliable across sprint boundaries. | When collaboration needs more than implicit expectations, it lays out shared ground rules openly. It creates reliability for conduct, availability, and decision paths. | 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 | 1-4 Wochen je Sprint, laufend | 45-90 min | 2-5 min je Item |
Participantsdifferent | 3-6 | 3-10 (Scrum Team) | 3-12 | 3-9 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Product Backlog, Sprint Backlog, Increment, Sprint Goal | Working Agreements, Team Norms, Review Cadence | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates |
Tags1 shared | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | AgileIterationCadence | TeamCollaborationAgile | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam |