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 Planning Poker |  Agile Example Mapping |  Agile Specification by Example |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 estimates within the team diverge too much, it puts differing expectations on a common test bench. It separates rough complexity from unspoken assumptions. | 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 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 2-5 min je Item | 30-60 min | 60-90 min pro Feature |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 3-9 | 3-7 | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Working Agreements, Team Norms, Review Cadence | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Example Map, Acceptance Criteria, Open Questions | Example Table, Acceptance Tests |
Tagsno overlap | TeamCollaborationAgile | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | Behavior-Driven DevelopmentRequirementsExamplesRefinement | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development |