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 |  Agile Planning Poker |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |  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 estimates within the team diverge too much, it puts differing expectations on a common test bench. It separates rough complexity from unspoken assumptions. | 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 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 | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 15-45 min | 2-5 min je Item | 1-2 h | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-12 | 3-9 | 4-12 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Size Buckets, Rough Backlog Map, Split Candidates | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationAgileRoadmap | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |