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 Example Mapping |  Agile Acceptance Criteria Workshop |  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 story carries business rules and exceptions, it brings clarity before implementation. It makes examples, open questions, and boundaries visible enough that the logic becomes jointly sound. | When a story needs clear checkpoints before implementation, it sharpens expectation and scope together. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as Acceptance Criteria and a Story Update. | When estimates within the team diverge too much, it puts differing expectations on a common test bench. It separates rough complexity from unspoken assumptions. |
Complexitysame | Low | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 30-60 min | 20-40 min pro Story | 2-5 min je Item |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 3-7 | 3-6 | 3-9 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Working Agreements, Team Norms, Review Cadence | Example Map, Acceptance Criteria, Open Questions | Acceptance Criteria, Story Update | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates |
Tagsno overlap | TeamCollaborationAgile | Behavior-Driven DevelopmentRequirementsExamplesRefinement | AgileRequirementsRefinementBehavior-Driven Development | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam |