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 Story Points |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Agile Planning Poker |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When teams want to rate complexity rather than hours, it creates a shared, relative scale. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as Point Estimates, Reference Stories, and Velocity Data. | When several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable. | 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 an initiative depends on many people, interests, and power dynamics, Stakeholder Mapping systematically orders the environment. It shows who influences, who is affected, and where relationship management or safeguarding matters first. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | laufend, 1-5 min je Item | 1-2 h | 2-5 min je Item | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-9 | 4-12 | 3-9 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Point Estimates, Reference Stories, Velocity Data | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationAgileMeasurement | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |