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 Team Charter |  Facilitation Alignment 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 a team is starting fresh or working past each other, Team Charter clarifies the shared working basis. It visibly sets out how collaboration, decision paths, and mutual conduct should work day to day. | 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 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 | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 15-45 min | 2-4 h | 1-2 h | 2-5 min je Item |
Participantsdifferent | 2-12 | 3-12 | 4-12 | 3-9 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Size Buckets, Rough Backlog Map, Split Candidates | Team Charter, Working Norms, Role Notes | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationAgileRoadmap | TeamAlignmentCollaboration | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam |