View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Operations Theory of Constraints |  Agile Story Points |  Agile Affinity Estimation |  Agile Planning Poker |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | For a system that does not get faster despite effort, the method directs attention to the bottleneck. It concentrates improvement on the point that actually limits throughput. | When teams want to rate complexity rather than hours, it creates a shared, relative scale. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as Point Estimates, Reference Stories, and Velocity Data. | 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. | 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 | High | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 2-4 h Analyse, laufend | laufend, 1-5 min je Item | 30-90 min | 2-5 min je Item |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 3-9 | 3-12 | 3-9 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Constraint Map, Improvement Plan, Flow Metrics | Point Estimates, Reference Stories, Velocity Data | Affinity Size Map, Grouped Estimates, Unclear Items | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates |
Tagsno overlap | OperationsConstraintsFlowImprovement | EstimationAgileMeasurement | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam |