View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Decision Making Three-Point Estimation |  Agile NoEstimates |  Agile Starfish Retrospective |  Agile 4Ls Retrospective |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | A single estimate for effort, time, or risk often looks too smooth for the real uncertainty behind it. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a Three-Point Estimate, Risk Range, and Assumption Notes. | When estimating slows a team down more than it helps, it shifts the focus to flow, small slices, and real lead time. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, and Slicing Rules. | When improvement options need to be sorted more finely than just start and stop, it brings observations into clear kinds of action. This makes visible what should be done more, less, newly, or continued. | When a sprint should not only be assessed but also learned from, it captures experience in clear learning categories. It records what worked, what's missing, and what should run differently next time. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 10-30 min je Item | laufend | 45-90 min | 45–75 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-8 | 2-12 | 4-12 | Team members involved |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Three-Point Estimate, Risk Range, Assumption Notes | Throughput Data, Flow Forecast, Slicing Rules | Starfish Board, Practice Changes, Experiments | 4Ls Board, Learning Themes, Improvement Actions |
Tagsno overlap | EstimationUncertaintyForecasting | EstimationForecastingFlow | RetrospectiveImprovementExperimentsTeam | RetrospectiveLearningReflectionTeam |