Overview
Scrum and Kanban are the two most widely adopted agile methodologies. Both aim to deliver working software incrementally, but they take fundamentally different approaches to how work flows through a team.
Scrum time-boxes work into sprints — fixed-length iterations (usually 2 weeks) with defined ceremonies. Kanban visualizes work on a board and limits how many items are in progress at once.
Neither is universally better. The right choice depends on your team's work patterns, how predictable your incoming work is, and how much structure your team needs.
Quick Comparison
| Dimension | Scrum | Kanban |
|---|
| Cadence | Fixed sprints (1-4 weeks) | Continuous flow |
| Planning | Sprint planning at start of each sprint | On-demand as capacity opens |
| Roles | Scrum Master, Product Owner, Dev Team | No prescribed roles |
| Ceremonies | Planning, standup, review, retro | No required meetings |
| Work limits | Sprint scope (committed items) | WIP limits per column |
| Change tolerance | Low during sprint | High (new items enter anytime) |
| Metrics | Velocity, burndown | Cycle time, throughput |
| Board reset | Cleared each sprint | Continuous (never resets) |
Scrum — Deep Dive
Scrum was formalized by Ken Schwaber and Jeff Sutherland in the 1990s. It structures work into sprints — time-boxed iterations where the team commits to a set of work and delivers a potentially shippable increment.
Core ceremonies:
Sprint Planning — team selects items from the backlog for the upcoming sprint
Daily Standup — 15-minute sync on progress and blockers
Sprint Review — demo completed work to stakeholders
Retrospective — reflect on what worked and what to improve
Strengths
Predictable delivery cadence — stakeholders know when to expect increments
Built-in reflection — retros force the team to improve process every 2 weeks
Clear accountability — sprint commitments make it obvious when the team is overloaded
Natural planning rhythm — product owners can plan releases around sprint boundaries
Velocity tracking — after a few sprints, you can forecast capacity with reasonable accuracy
Weaknesses
Rigid during sprints — urgent work that arrives mid-sprint disrupts the commitment
Ceremony overhead — planning, review, and retro consume 10-15% of sprint time
Sprint goal pressure — teams may cut corners to "finish" committed items
Artificial batching — a feature done on Day 3 waits until sprint end for review
Doesn't fit interrupt-driven work — support teams and ops can't commit to sprint scope
When to Use Scrum
Your team builds planned features with predictable scope
You need a regular delivery cadence for stakeholder demos and releases
Your team is new to agile and benefits from imposed structure
You want to measure and improve velocity over time
Your work has low interrupt rates — less than 20% of sprint capacity is unplanned
Kanban — Deep Dive
Kanban originated in Toyota's manufacturing system and was adapted for software development by David Anderson in the 2000s. It focuses on visualizing work, limiting work-in-progress (WIP), and optimizing flow.
Core principles:
Visualize the workflow — every task on a board, every column represents a stage
Limit WIP — cap the number of items in each column (e.g., max 3 items in "In Review")
Manage flow — measure cycle time and remove bottlenecks
Make policies explicit — define what "Done" means for each column
Improve continuously — no retro ceremony, but constant attention to flow
Strengths
Handles interrupts well — new urgent items enter the board without breaking a commitment
No ceremony overhead — the team spends time on work, not meetings about work
Exposes bottlenecks — WIP limits make it immediately visible when work piles up in a stage
Faster delivery — finished items ship immediately, no waiting for sprint end
Flexible — works for teams of any size with any mix of planned and unplanned work
Weaknesses
No forced reflection — without retros, process improvements happen only when someone pushes for them
Hard to forecast — no velocity means you can't easily answer "when will this be done?"
Requires discipline — WIP limits only work if the team respects them; without a Scrum Master, nobody enforces them
Stakeholder communication — no natural demo cadence means stakeholders may feel out of the loop
Can drift — without sprint boundaries, teams sometimes work on items for weeks without delivering
When to Use Kanban
Your team handles a mix of planned work and unplanned requests (bugs, support, ops)
You want to ship features as they're ready rather than batching into sprints
Your team is experienced and self-disciplined enough to manage flow without ceremonies
Cycle time matters more than velocity — you optimize for how fast one item moves through the system
You're in a maintenance or support phase where incoming work is unpredictable
Decision Matrix: Which Framework to Choose
Choose Scrum when:
You're building new features with reasonably predictable scope
Your team needs structure and ceremony to stay aligned
Stakeholders expect regular demos and progress reports
You want to build a velocity baseline for capacity planning
Less than 20% of your work is unplanned interrupts
Choose Kanban when:
More than 30% of your work is unplanned or interrupt-driven
You want to minimize process overhead and maximize time on actual work
Your team already has strong agile habits and doesn't need imposed structure
You care more about cycle time (how fast one item ships) than velocity (how much ships per sprint)
You're running a platform, DevOps, or support team where work arrives continuously
Consider Scrumban when:
You want sprint planning cadence but Kanban's flow flexibility
Your team is transitioning from Scrum and finding sprints too rigid
You need WIP limits but also want regular retros
Making the Transition
Scrum to Kanban: Start by extending sprint length to 4 weeks, then remove the sprint boundary entirely. Add WIP limits to your board columns. Keep standups and retros on a regular cadence (they're useful even without sprints).
Kanban to Scrum: Start by introducing a 2-week planning checkpoint. Have the team commit to a set of items for the next 2 weeks. Add a demo and retro at the end. The board stays the same — you're adding time-boxing on top of it.
Metrics Comparison
Scrum metrics:
Velocity (story points per sprint)
Sprint burndown (work remaining over time)
Sprint goal completion rate
Kanban metrics:
Cycle time (start to finish per item)
Throughput (items completed per week)
Cumulative flow diagram (work distribution across stages)
Both approaches benefit from tracking escaped defects and team satisfaction over time.
Bottom Line
Scrum gives you structure, predictability, and forced reflection. Kanban gives you flexibility, speed, and reduced overhead. The best teams pick based on their work patterns, not ideology.
If most of your work is planned feature development, start with Scrum. If your work is interrupt-heavy or you're an experienced team that doesn't need guardrails, go with Kanban. And if neither fits perfectly, Scrumban is a pragmatic middle ground.
Free Resource
Get More Comparisons
Subscribe to get framework breakdowns, decision guides, and PM strategies delivered to your inbox.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.