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 Story Points |  Decision Making PERT Estimation |  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 teams want to rate complexity rather than hours, it creates a shared, relative scale. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as Point Estimates, Reference Stories, and Velocity Data. | On complex initiatives, a plain average tends to understate just how uncertain the outcome really is. It separates options, evaluation criteria, and open risks. The result is captured as a PERT Estimate, Expected Value, and Risk Notes. | 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 | laufend, 1-5 min je Item | 15-45 min | 2-5 min je Item |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 3-9 | 1-8 | 3-9 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Working Agreements, Team Norms, Review Cadence | Point Estimates, Reference Stories, Velocity Data | PERT Estimate, Expected Value, Risk Notes | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates |
Tagsno overlap | TeamCollaborationAgile | EstimationAgileMeasurement | EstimationUncertaintyRisk | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam |