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 T-Shirt Sizing |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  Agile Bucket System |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 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 a large batch of work needs a fast, rough estimate, it sorts items into predefined size buckets. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as a Bucketed Backlog, Relative Estimates, and Split Candidates. | 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 | Low | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 15-45 min | 1-2 h | 30-90 min | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-12 | 4-12 | 3-12 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Size Buckets, Rough Backlog Map, Split Candidates | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Bucketed Backlog, Relative Estimates, Split Candidates | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationAgileRoadmap | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |