Planning poker tools compared

Start with the constraint that will actually bite. For most teams that is the free tier, and free tiers are capped in three different ways, which is why they are hard to compare at a glance. Some cap people, some cap rounds or stories per session, and some cap nothing but show advertising instead. A seven-person cap and a five-story cap sound similar and fail in completely different places.

Next, work out who has to be in the room. If a contractor, a designer or a product manager on a different toolchain needs to vote, anything that requires a licence on your issue tracker is out before you compare anything else. If everyone voting already has a Jira seat, that constraint disappears and a Jira app becomes the strongest option on this page.

Then decide whether write-back matters. Typing an agreed number into a ticket takes about four seconds, so for a team estimating eight stories a fortnight the automation is worth very little. For a team running a two-hour refinement across forty issues it is the difference between finishing and not.

Finally, look at what the tool shows after the reveal. A tool that only shows an average is quietly encouraging the worst way to resolve a round, because the average is a number nobody voted for. An agreement percentage tells you whether to move on or discuss, which is the actual decision in front of you.

Every figure above was read off the named product’s own public pages on 27 August 2026. Pricing and limits change without notice, so check the vendor’s pricing page before you plan a budget around any of it.

It has no Jira integration, no Linear integration and no CSV import. It has no async voting, so everybody estimates in the same session. There is no account, which also means there is no saved history across sessions beyond the export you take at the end.

Those absences are why the tool is free and why it opens in one click, but they are real absences. If any of them is the thing you need, one of the pages above will point you at a product that has it.

Each page states what we could verify from the vendor’s own site and nothing else. Where a competitor does something SprintsPoker cannot, the page says so plainly, because a comparison that never concedes a point is not a comparison. Product names and trademarks belong to their owners, and no affiliation or endorsement is implied.

“Planning Poker” is a registered trademark of Mountain Goat Software. It is used on this site to describe the estimation technique.

Last checked: 27 August 2026.