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 Bucket System |  Agile Specification by Example |  Agile Planning Poker |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 a large batch of work needs a fast, rough estimate, it sorts items into predefined size buckets. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as a Bucketed Backlog, Relative Estimates, and Split Candidates. | 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. | 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 | 45-90 min | 30-90 min | 60-90 min pro Feature | 2-5 min je Item |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 3-12 | 3-6 | 3-9 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Working Agreements, Team Norms, Review Cadence | Bucketed Backlog, Relative Estimates, Split Candidates | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates |
Tagsno overlap | TeamCollaborationAgile | EstimationBacklogRelative sizing | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam |