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 Specification by Example |  Decision Making PERT Estimation |  Agile Example 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 business rules need to become precise, it ties language, example, and test together. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as an Example Table and Acceptance Tests. | On complex initiatives, a plain average tends to understate just how uncertain the outcome really is. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a PERT Estimate, Expected Value, and Risk Notes. | When a story carries business rules and exceptions, it brings clarity before implementation. It makes examples, open questions, and boundaries visible enough that the logic becomes jointly sound. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 15-45 min | 60-90 min pro Feature | 15-45 min | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 2-12 | 3-6 | 1-8 | 3-7 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Size Buckets, Rough Backlog Map, Split Candidates | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | PERT Estimate, Expected Value, Risk Notes | Example Map, Acceptance Criteria, Open Questions |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationAgileRoadmap | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | EstimationUncertaintyRisk | Behavior-Driven DevelopmentRequirementsExamplesRefinement |