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 |  Decision Making Three-Point Estimation |  Facilitation Dot Estimation |  Agile Planning Poker |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | A single estimate for effort, time, or risk often looks too smooth for the real uncertainty behind it. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a Three-Point Estimate, Risk Range, and Assumption Notes. | When size or effort can only be estimated roughly, Dot Estimation condenses the group's experience into a quick range. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as an Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, and Discussion Targets. | 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 | laufend, 1-5 min je Item | 10-30 min je Item | 5-20 min | 2-5 min je Item |
Participantsdifferent | 3-9 | 1-8 | 3-20 | 3-9 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Point Estimates, Reference Stories, Velocity Data | Three-Point Estimate, Risk Range, Assumption Notes | Effort Heatmap, Risk Signals, Discussion Targets | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates |
Tags1 shared | EstimationAgileMeasurement | EstimationUncertaintyForecasting | EstimationEffortRisk | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam |