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 |  Facilitation Expectation Mapping |  Agile Planning Poker |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 roles, interfaces, or projects fail because of differing expectations, Expectation Mapping surfaces these differences. It shows what each side takes for granted and where the pictures diverge. | 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 | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 15-45 min | 1-2 h | 45-90 min | 2-5 min je Item |
Participantsdifferent | 2-12 | 4-12 | 3-12 | 3-9 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Size Buckets, Rough Backlog Map, Split Candidates | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationAgileRoadmap | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam |