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 Working Agreements |  Agile Affinity Estimation |  Agile Planning Poker |  Agile T-Shirt Sizing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When collaboration needs more than implicit expectations, it lays out shared ground rules openly. It creates reliability for conduct, availability, and decision paths. | 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. | When effort only needs to be classified roughly, it makes comparability more important than false precision. It helps sort work quickly into manageable sizes. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 30-90 min | 2-5 min je Item | 15-45 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 3-12 | 3-9 | 2-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Working Agreements, Team Norms, Review Cadence | Affinity Size Map, Grouped Estimates, Unclear Items | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Size Buckets, Rough Backlog Map, Split Candidates |
Tagsno overlap | TeamCollaborationAgile | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | EstimationAgileRoadmap |