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 T-Shirt Sizing |  Agile Example Mapping |  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 effort only needs to be classified roughly, it makes comparability more important than false precision. It helps sort work quickly into manageable sizes. | 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 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 | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 60-90 min pro Feature | 15-45 min | 30-60 min | 2-5 min je Item |
Participantsdifferent | 3-6 | 2-12 | 3-7 | 3-9 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Size Buckets, Rough Backlog Map, Split Candidates | Example Map, Acceptance Criteria, Open Questions | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates |
Tagsno overlap | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | EstimationAgileRoadmap | Behavior-Driven DevelopmentRequirementsExamplesRefinement | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam |