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 |  Team Design Team API |  Agile Planning Poker |  Agile Affinity Estimation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 expectations between teams stay fuzzy, it describes how a team can be reached, used, and held accountable. It clarifies responsibility, interaction, and load between teams. The result is captured as a Team API document. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 60-90 min pro Feature | Half day initial, dann laufend | 2-5 min je Item | 30-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-6 | Ein Team plus Stakeholder | 3-9 | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Team API Document | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Affinity Size Map, Grouped Estimates, Unclear Items |
Tagsno overlap | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | TeamAlignmentCommunicationService | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing |