Avi SiegelCo-Founder of Momentum. Formerly Product @ Klaviyo, Zaius (acquired by Optimizely), and Upscribe.
Table of Contents
- 1. Planning Poker
- How It Works
- When to Use Planning Poker
- Actionable Tips for Success
- 2. T-Shirt Sizing
- How It Works
- When to Use T-Shirt Sizing
- Actionable Tips for Success
- 3. Dot Voting (Multi-Voting)
- How It Works
- When to Use Dot Voting
- Actionable Tips for Success
- 4. Affinity Estimation
- How It Works
- When to Use Affinity Estimation
- Actionable Tips for Success
- 5. The Bucket System
- How It Works
- When to Use The Bucket System
- Actionable Tips for Success
- 6. Three-Point Estimation
- How It Works
- When to Use Three-Point Estimation
- Actionable Tips for Success
- 7. Relative Mass Valuation
- How It Works
- When to Use Relative Mass Valuation
- Actionable Tips for Success
- 8. Async Poker
- How It Works
- When to Use Async Poker
- Actionable Tips for Success
- Agile Estimation Methods Comparison
- Choosing Your Method: From Theory to Practice
- Synthesizing the Methods: A Practical Framework for Selection
- The Evolution of Your Estimation Practice
Do not index
Do not index
In Agile development, the phrase "estimation is not a commitment" is a common refrain, but that doesn't render it meaningless. While Agile prioritizes adaptability over rigid, long-term plans, effective estimation remains a critical tool for forecasting, planning, and managing expectations. It’s the connective tissue between a product vision and the practical realities of a development cycle. Without a shared understanding of effort, teams struggle with sprint planning, product owners can't reliably forecast release timelines, and stakeholders are left in the dark.
The challenge isn't about finding a crystal ball to predict exact hours. Instead, it’s about fostering a collaborative process to align the team on the relative complexity of work. Good estimation facilitates crucial conversations, uncovers hidden assumptions, and helps identify dependencies early. It empowers teams to answer vital questions: Can we fit this work into the upcoming sprint? What’s the likely scope for our next release? Are we taking on too much risk?
This guide moves beyond theory to provide a practical roundup of the most effective agile estimation methods used by high-performing teams. We will break down eight distinct techniques, from the well-known Planning Poker to asynchronous-friendly alternatives. For each method, you'll find:
- A clear explanation of how it works.
- Actionable steps for implementation.
- Specific pros and cons to consider.
- Guidance on when to use each technique for maximum impact.
By the end, you'll have a comprehensive toolkit to select and apply the right estimation strategy for any context, improving your team's predictability and a stakeholder's confidence.
1. Planning Poker
Planning Poker, also known as Scrum Poker, is one of the most popular and gamified agile estimation methods. Popularized by Mike Cohn of Mountain Goat Software, it uses a consensus-based approach to estimate the effort required for development tasks or user stories. This technique is designed to foster collaboration and prevent cognitive biases, such as anchoring, where the first number spoken influences subsequent estimates.
How It Works
During a session, the product owner presents a user story, for example: "As a user, I want to reset my password via email." The team discusses the requirements—what forms are needed, what email service is used, what are the security considerations? Then, each team member privately selects a card from a deck that represents their estimate of the effort involved. These cards typically follow a modified Fibonacci sequence (e.g., 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 20, 40, 100).
Once everyone has chosen a card, they reveal their estimates simultaneously. If a junior developer votes '3' and a senior developer votes '8', this signals a valuable discussion. The senior developer might explain, "This requires a database schema change and integration with a third-party email API, which adds complexity." This discussion uncovers different assumptions and leads to a more accurate, shared understanding. The team re-votes until they reach a consensus, perhaps agreeing on '5' story points.
When to Use Planning Poker
This method is highly effective for:
- New or complex projects: Where a shared understanding of the work is still developing.
- Cross-functional teams: It gives a voice to every role (developers, QA, designers), ensuring all aspects of the work are considered.
- Sprint planning meetings: To quickly and collaboratively estimate the product backlog before committing to a sprint.
For a deeper dive into the mechanics and best practices of this technique, you can explore specialized tools for Planning Poker that digitize the process.
To help you get started, this summary box highlights the core components of a successful Planning Poker session.
These key elements-the Fibonacci scale, short session times, and simultaneous reveal-work together to create a structured yet flexible environment for accurate, team-driven estimation.
Actionable Tips for Success
- Establish a Baseline: Before you start, agree on a simple, well-understood "baseline" story and assign it a value (e.g., "Updating the text on the contact page is a 2-point story"). Use this story as a reference point for all future estimations.
- Focus on Effort, Not Time: Remind the team to estimate the total effort, complexity, and risk involved, not the number of hours or days it will take. This prevents estimates from being tied to specific individuals' skill levels.
- Use the Two-Round Rule: If the team can't reach a consensus after two rounds of discussion and re-voting, consider taking the higher estimate or parking the story for further refinement. This keeps the meeting moving.
2. T-Shirt Sizing
T-Shirt Sizing is a quick and collaborative agile estimation method used to forecast effort at a high level. Instead of assigning numerical points, teams categorize work items into relative sizes, such as Extra Small (XS), Small (S), Medium (M), Large (L), and Extra Large (XL). This approach is perfect for early-stage planning when precise details are unavailable, allowing teams to quickly gauge the relative scale of tasks without getting bogged down in specifics.
How It Works
In a T-Shirt Sizing session, a product owner presents a list of features or epics to the team. For example, an e-commerce team might be looking at these features for the next quarter: 'Implement guest checkout,' 'Add a product recommendation engine,' and 'Fix a CSS bug on the login page.' The team discusses each one briefly. They might quickly agree the bug fix is an 'XS'. The guest checkout, requiring UI changes and backend logic, is an 'M'. The recommendation engine, involving new algorithms and machine learning, is clearly an 'L' or 'XL'.
The goal is not to achieve perfect accuracy but to create a rough order of magnitude and facilitate a shared understanding. The sizes can later be mapped to story points (e.g., XS=1, S=3, M=8, L=20) for more granular sprint planning, giving the product manager a quick way to forecast the quarter's scope.
When to Use T-Shirt Sizing
This method is highly effective for:
- Initial backlog grooming: When you have a large number of unestimated items and need a quick way to prioritize them.
- Roadmap and release planning: To get a high-level forecast of what can be accomplished in a quarter or release.
- Early-stage projects: When requirements are still vague and detailed estimation would be premature and inaccurate.
Actionable Tips for Success
- Define Clear Size Criteria: Before starting, create and agree upon clear definitions. For example:
XS= A trivial change one dev can do in <1 day.M= A standard feature requiring a few days of work from 1-2 devs.L= A complex feature involving multiple components or dependencies.
- Use Reference Stories: Anchor each size category with a well-understood reference story. When estimating a new item, the team can ask, "Is this bigger or smaller than our 'Implement social login' feature, which we called an 'M'?"
- Focus on Relativity: Emphasize that the goal is to compare items to each other, not to determine exact timelines. The conversation should center on "Is Feature A roughly twice the effort of Feature B?"
- Limit the Number of Sizes: Stick to 5-6 sizes (e.g., XS, S, M, L, XL, XXL) to keep decision-making simple and fast. Adding too many intermediate sizes defeats the purpose of this high-level technique.
3. Dot Voting (Multi-Voting)
Dot Voting, also known as multi-voting, is a straightforward, democratic technique used for collaborative decision-making and prioritization. While not a pure estimation method like others, it is one of the most effective agile estimation methods for quickly gauging a team's collective opinion on the relative priority, effort, or importance of a list of items. It provides a simple, visual way to narrow down options and build consensus.
How It Works
Imagine a team retrospective where members have generated several ideas for improvement: 'Improve CI/CD pipeline speed,' 'Refactor the old user module,' 'Create more unit tests,' and 'Automate deployment checks.' Each participant receives three dot stickers. They can place all three dots on 'Improve CI/CD pipeline speed' if they feel it's the most critical issue, or one dot on three different items.
Once everyone has voted, the items with the most dots are clearly identified as the team's top priorities. If 'Improve CI/CD pipeline speed' gets the most dots, it becomes the clear focus for the next sprint. This visual result sparks a focused discussion about why certain items received more votes, leading to a shared understanding and a clear path forward.
When to Use Dot Voting
This method is highly effective for:
- Prioritizing a large backlog: When you need to quickly identify the most valuable features for an upcoming release or sprint.
- Retrospectives: To decide which process improvement ideas the team should focus on next.
- Design Sprints and Workshops: Companies like Google and IBM use it to rapidly converge on key ideas or features after a brainstorming session.
By combining dot voting with other agile practices, teams can create a highly efficient workflow. For example, using it within a strictly scheduled meeting enhances focus. You can explore the value of structured meeting schedules to learn more about the timeboxing technique and how it complements rapid decision-making.
Actionable Tips for Success
- Limit the Dots: Give each person only 3-5 dots. Scarcity forces participants to make thoughtful choices rather than voting for everything. The number of dots should be about 20-30% of the total number of options.
- Use Different Colors: Assign different colored dots to represent different criteria. For example, use red dots for "highest value" and blue dots for "highest effort." An item with many red dots and few blue dots is a clear quick win.
- Encourage Discussion: Use the voting result as a conversation starter, not the final word. Ask "Why did 'Refactor the user module' get so few votes, even though we complain about it?" to uncover valuable insights.
- Consider Anonymous Voting: If team dynamics might lead to groupthink or influence from senior members, use a digital tool or a private voting method to ensure all opinions are weighed equally.
4. Affinity Estimation
Affinity Estimation is one of the fastest agile estimation methods, designed for sizing a large number of user stories in a short amount of time. Popularized by Dean Leffingwell and widely used within the Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe), this technique involves grouping stories into clusters of similar size or complexity rather than assigning individual numerical values from the start. It is a highly collaborative and visual process that leverages the team's collective intuition.
How It Works
The process begins with user stories written on physical cards. The team stands around a wall labeled "Smaller" on the left and "Larger" on the right. Members silently pick up cards, read them, and place them on the wall relative to other cards. For example, a card for "Change button color" is placed on the far left. "Integrate new payment gateway" is placed on the far right. A team member might move "Add social sharing links" to be closer to "Change button color" because they feel it's a similarly small task. This silent, kinesthetic activity continues until the cards form distinct clusters based on perceived effort.
Once movement slows down, the team discusses the groupings. "It looks like we have a group of small UI tweaks here, and a group of major backend integrations over here." They then assign T-shirt sizes (XS, S, M, L, XL) or Fibonacci numbers to each cluster, instantly estimating dozens of stories in minutes.
When to Use Affinity Estimation
This method is particularly powerful for:
- Large backlogs: When you need to estimate dozens or hundreds of stories quickly, such as during Program Increment (PI) planning.
- Initial project scoping: To get a high-level sense of the project's overall size without getting bogged down in detailed estimation.
- Quarterly planning sessions: Where the goal is to get a rough cut of a large volume of work.
For more information on how this technique fits into broader planning activities, you can get a more in-depth look at the essentials of sprint planning and its key components.
Actionable Tips for Success
- Start with Anchor Stories: Before starting, place a few well-understood stories of different known sizes on the board as "anchors." For example, place a known 2-point story on the left and a known 13-point story on the right to create a shared reference scale.
- Embrace the Silence: Enforce the "silent sorting" rule for the initial grouping phase. This prevents individuals from overly influencing others and allows for a faster, more intuitive process. The goal is to capture gut feel first, then discuss.
- Use Physical Cards: Whenever possible, use physical sticky notes or cards. The tactile act of moving items around a physical space can enhance collaboration and engagement.
- Review the Outliers: After the initial grouping, pay special attention to stories that were moved back and forth frequently or sit awkwardly between two groups. These are perfect candidates for a short discussion to clarify assumptions.
5. The Bucket System
The Bucket System is one of the most efficient agile estimation methods for quickly sizing a large number of user stories. This technique prioritizes speed and simplicity, making it ideal for high-level planning or initial backlog grooming. It involves sorting items into predefined “buckets,” each representing a specific effort size.
How It Works
First, you prepare physical or digital "buckets" labeled with Fibonacci numbers (0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13...). The facilitator reads a user story aloud, for instance, "As an admin, I want to export a user list to CSV." Team members then give a thumbs-up or point to the bucket they think it belongs in. If everyone points to the '3' bucket, the story is placed there and the team moves on.
If there's a major disagreement—some point to '2' while others point to '8'—it signals a misunderstanding. This triggers a brief, time-boxed discussion. "The '8' voters are considering the need to handle millions of users, which requires a background job. The '2' voters assumed a simple, direct export." After clarification, the team re-votes and reaches a consensus, likely moving the story to a '5' or '8' bucket.
When to Use The Bucket System
This method is highly effective for:
- Large-scale backlog estimation: When you need to estimate hundreds of items quickly before a big planning event.
- Initial project scoping: To get a rough order of magnitude for a new project or feature set.
- Backlog refinement sessions: It serves as a fast alternative to more time-consuming estimation techniques.
This approach is a powerful tool for initial sizing exercises, and you can learn more about how it fits into the broader picture by exploring techniques for an effective backlog grooming activity.
Actionable Tips for Success
- Establish Reference Stories: Before you begin, place one well-understood story into each bucket to serve as a clear reference point. For example, "The '2' bucket is for stories like 'Fixing a typo'." This anchors the team's understanding.
- Use a Facilitator: A dedicated facilitator is crucial to keep the process moving quickly, read stories clearly, manage discussions, and prevent the session from getting bogged down in details.
- Timebox Discussions: If there is disagreement, allow for a one-minute discussion. If a consensus isn't reached, place the item in the larger of the disputed buckets and move on. The goal is speed, not perfect accuracy.
- Keep Buckets Visible: Whether using a physical wall with sticky notes or a digital tool, ensure the buckets and their reference stories are clearly visible to everyone throughout the session.
6. Three-Point Estimation
Three-Point Estimation is one of the more analytical agile estimation methods, adapted from traditional project management techniques like PERT. It tackles uncertainty head-on by creating a range of estimates instead of a single value. This method provides a more realistic view of potential outcomes by considering the best-case, worst-case, and most-likely scenarios.
How It Works
For each user story, the team determines three distinct estimates. Let's take the story: "Integrate a third-party payment provider."
- Optimistic (O): The best-case scenario. "The provider's API documentation is perfect, and there are no integration hiccups. We can do it in 3 story points."
- Most Likely (M): The most realistic estimate. "There will probably be some minor issues with authentication or callbacks. It will likely take 5 story points."
- Pessimistic (P): The worst-case scenario. "The API is unreliable, their support is slow, and we run into major security hurdles. This could blow up to 13 story points."
These three points are then used to calculate a final estimate using a weighted average, typically the PERT formula: (O + 4M + P) / 6. In our example, this would be (3 + 4*5 + 13) / 6 = 36 / 6 = 6 story points. This calculated value is more robust because it accounts for potential risks.
When to Use Three-Point Estimation
This method is particularly valuable for:
- High-risk or high-uncertainty stories: When the team is working with unfamiliar technology or the requirements are ambiguous.
- Critical system development: For projects where a failure to deliver on time has significant consequences.
- Projects with tight deadlines: It helps stakeholders understand the potential range of completion dates and associated risks.
To gain a more complete understanding of how this fits into your workflow, you can learn more about task estimation techniques and their applications in agile environments.
Actionable Tips for Success
- Use Historical Data: Ground your optimistic and pessimistic estimates in past performance. For the pessimistic case, think about a past project where a third-party API was unexpectedly difficult. Use that experience to inform the 'P' value.
- Focus on the Range: While the calculated average is useful, the real value lies in the range (from O to P). Communicating "This could take anywhere from 3 to 13 points, but our calculated estimate is 6" is much more informative than just saying "It's 6 points."
- Define Scenarios Clearly: Before estimating, agree on what the pessimistic case includes. Does it account for a key developer being on sick leave? Or an external service being down? Defining these boundaries prevents wildly inconsistent estimates.
7. Relative Mass Valuation
Relative Mass Valuation is a streamlined agile estimation method that focuses on comparing user stories to a single, well-understood baseline story. Instead of assigning abstract points from a sequence, teams estimate new items as multiples of the reference story's "mass" or weight. This technique simplifies estimation by grounding all values in a tangible, shared example.
How It Works
The process begins with the team selecting a clear, medium-sized story from the backlog to serve as the baseline, or "datum." Let's say the team chooses "Add a new field to the user profile form" and assigns it a value of 10. This is their reference point.
During estimation, they look at a new story: "Implement a two-factor authentication (2FA) feature." They ask, "How much bigger is 2FA compared to adding a form field?" The team might decide it's about five times as complex, involving multiple steps, UI changes, and external services. They would then assign it a value of 50 (5 x 10). A smaller story, like "Change the color of the submit button," might be estimated as being one-tenth the effort, giving it a value of 1. This comparison-based approach is fast and intuitive.
When to Use Relative Mass Valuation
This method is highly effective for:
- Teams seeking simplicity: It offers a less ceremonial alternative to Planning Poker, making it ideal for smaller teams or those new to agile.
- Rapid backlog grooming: Startup companies needing to estimate a large backlog quickly find this approach efficient.
- Projects with a stable domain: When the nature of the work is consistent, a stable baseline provides a reliable long-term reference.
Actionable Tips for Success
- Choose a Solid Baseline: Select a well-understood, medium-sized story that represents a typical chunk of work. It should be something the whole team understands, like "Add a basic search filter to a list page." Avoid stories that are too small, too large, or poorly defined.
- Regularly Review the Baseline: After a few months, the team's skills may have improved or the codebase changed. That original baseline story might now feel smaller. Periodically re-evaluate and, if necessary, choose a new baseline to prevent "story point inflation."
- Combine with Discussion: If there's a disagreement (e.g., some say a story is a 30, others a 50), use it as a trigger for conversation. The discussion will likely uncover hidden complexities one group was considering and the other was not.
8. Async Poker
Async Poker is a modern adaptation of Planning Poker, designed specifically for agile estimation methods in distributed or remote team environments. It leverages digital tools to facilitate estimation asynchronously, preserving the core principles of Planning Poker while accommodating flexible schedules.
How It Works
A product owner adds a user story, like "As a user, I want to receive push notifications for new messages," into a tool like Jira with an Async Poker plugin. Team members in different time zones receive a notification. A developer in New York reviews it in their morning and submits an estimate of '5', adding a comment: "This seems straightforward if we use the existing notification service."
Later, a developer in Berlin reviews the same story and submits an '8', commenting: "We need to consider iOS and Android differences, plus add user settings to enable/disable these notifications. This adds complexity." The tool flags the variance. The team then discusses the points in a comment thread. After clarification, they re-estimate, converging on a shared understanding and a final estimate without ever having a real-time meeting.
When to Use Async Poker
This method is highly effective for:
- Geographically distributed teams: It's ideal for teams spread across multiple time zones, eliminating the need for inconveniently scheduled meetings.
- Teams with flexible work schedules: It supports members who may have different working hours, allowing them to contribute when they are most productive.
- Large or open-source projects: Where coordinating a live session with many contributors is impractical.
Actionable Tips for Success
- Set Clear Deadlines: Establish and communicate a clear deadline for submitting initial estimates (e.g., "Please estimate these 5 stories by EOD Friday"). This ensures the process keeps moving forward.
- Require Written Rationale: Mandate that every estimate includes a short justification. This simple step provides immediate context for outliers and dramatically speeds up the consensus-building discussion.
- Appoint a Facilitator: Designate a facilitator to monitor the process, nudge team members for input, summarize discussion points in the thread, and declare when a consensus has been reached. This prevents stories from getting stuck in limbo.
Agile Estimation Methods Comparison
Estimation Technique | Implementation Complexity 🔄 | Resource Requirements ⚡ | Expected Outcomes 📊 | Ideal Use Cases 💡 | Key Advantages ⭐ |
Planning Poker | Moderate – requires facilitation and team alignment | Moderate – needs all team members' participation | Accurate relative sizing with consensus | Sprint planning, detailed story estimation | Reduces bias, encourages discussion, team engagement |
T-Shirt Sizing | Low – simple, quick classification | Low – small effort, minimal tools needed | High-level relative sizing | Early-stage estimation, portfolio planning | Fast, easy to understand, good for stakeholders |
Dot Voting (Multi-Voting) | Low – straightforward voting process | Low – simple voting tokens or digital dots | Prioritization combined with rough estimation | Prioritization workshops, large item sets | Quick, visual, democratic, engages whole team |
Affinity Estimation | Moderate – silent grouping, iterative process | Moderate – physical or digital cards needed | Efficient bulk estimation with pattern recognition | Large backlog or release planning | Fast for many items, reduces cognitive load |
The Bucket System | Low to moderate – rapid categorization | Low – predefined buckets, minimal discussion | Fast relative sizing across wide ranges | Large volume story estimation | Very fast, easy to learn, prevents overthinking |
Three-Point Estimation | High – requires multiple estimates and calculations | Moderate – needs risk knowledge and analysis | Realistic estimates accounting for uncertainty | High-risk, complex, regulatory projects | Accounts for risk, mathematically objective |
Relative Mass Valuation | Low – simple baseline comparison | Low – single baseline story reference | Consistent relative sizing, flexible granularities | Teams new to estimation, quick comparison | Simple, clear reference point, easy to understand |
Async Poker | Moderate to high – asynchronous coordination needed | Moderate – digital tools and facilitator | Distributed consensus over time | Remote or distributed teams | Time-zone friendly, written rationale, flexible timing |
Choosing Your Method: From Theory to Practice
We've journeyed through a comprehensive landscape of eight distinct agile estimation methods, from the collaborative consensus-building of Planning Poker to the rapid, intuitive sorting of Affinity Estimation. Each technique offers a unique lens through which teams can view complexity, effort, and uncertainty. The core takeaway is not that one method reigns supreme, but that the most effective teams build a versatile toolkit, ready to deploy the right approach for the right context. Estimation is not a one-size-fits-all problem; it's a dynamic challenge that requires a flexible response.
The ultimate goal of any agile estimation method is not to produce a flawless prediction of the future. Instead, the true value lies in the process of estimation itself. It's the catalyst for critical conversations, the mechanism that forces teams to deconstruct assumptions, uncover hidden dependencies, and align on a shared understanding of the work ahead. A great estimation session leaves the team more knowledgeable and unified than when they started, regardless of the final number assigned to a user story.
Synthesizing the Methods: A Practical Framework for Selection
So, how do you move from understanding these techniques to implementing them effectively? The key is to match the method's characteristics to your team's immediate needs and maturity level. Think of it as choosing the right tool for a specific job on your project timeline.
Here is a practical framework to guide your decision-making:
- For Early-Stage, High-Level Planning (e.g., Quarterly or Release Planning): Your focus is on the big picture, not granular detail. You need speed and a way to gauge the relative size of large epics or features.
- Best Bets: T-Shirt Sizing or Affinity Estimation. These methods are perfect for quickly categorizing a large backlog without getting bogged down in specifics. They provide a strategic overview to inform roadmap prioritization.
- For Detailed Sprint or Iteration Planning: Precision and shared understanding become paramount. The team needs to commit to a scope of work for the upcoming cycle.
- Best Bets: Planning Poker or its asynchronous sibling, Async Poker. These methods excel at fostering deep discussion and leveraging the collective intelligence of the entire team to arrive at a consensus-based estimate for individual stories. The Bucket System also works well here for teams that prefer a faster, physical sorting process.
- When Prioritizing a Small, Well-Defined Set of Items: You have a handful of contenders for the next sprint and need a democratic way to decide what to tackle first.
- Best Bet: Dot Voting. This is a simple, transparent, and incredibly fast technique for gauging group preference and quickly prioritizing a limited set of options.
- When Facing High Uncertainty or Risk: Some stories are fraught with unknowns. A single-point estimate feels dishonest and fails to capture the potential range of outcomes.
- Best Bet: Three-Point Estimation. By providing optimistic, pessimistic, and most likely scenarios, this method formally acknowledges uncertainty. It gives stakeholders a more realistic picture of the potential effort and associated risks.
The Evolution of Your Estimation Practice
Your team's approach to agile estimation should not be static. It should evolve. A brand-new team might start with the simplicity of T-Shirt Sizing to get comfortable with relative estimation. As they mature, they might graduate to Planning Poker to foster richer technical discussions. A distributed team might find that Async Poker eliminates scheduling headaches and allows for more thoughtful, individual contributions.
The true mastery of agile estimation methods is realized when they become second nature, a seamless part of your team's communication and planning rhythm. The focus shifts from "doing estimation" to "having a valuable planning conversation," with the chosen technique merely providing the structure for that dialogue. This is the transition from theory to practice, where estimation stops being a chore and becomes a strategic advantage for delivering value consistently and predictably.
Ready to move beyond estimates and get real-time visibility into your team's workflow? Momentum integrates with Jira, GitHub, and your project management tools to surface bottlenecks and provide the engineering analytics you need to keep your sprints on track. Stop guessing and start seeing what’s really happening in your development cycle with Momentum.
Article created using Outrank
Written by
Avi Siegel
Co-Founder of Momentum. Formerly Product @ Klaviyo, Zaius (acquired by Optimizely), and Upscribe.