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 |  Operations Bottleneck Analysis |  Agile Planning Poker |  Agile Affinity Estimation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | For a flow that backs up at one point, the method looks for the capacity limit with the greatest leverage. It explains why extra effort elsewhere barely improves throughput. | 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 | Low | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 15-45 min | 1-3 h | 2-5 min je Item | 30-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-12 | 3-8 | 3-9 | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Size Buckets, Rough Backlog Map, Split Candidates | Bottleneck Map, Flow Metrics, Improvement Options, Follow-up Measures | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Affinity Size Map, Grouped Estimates, Unclear Items |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationAgileRoadmap | FlowMeasurementConstraints | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing |