Kanban vs Scrum: Which One is Better for Your Business to Use in 2025?
In today’s rapidly evolving business landscape, choosing the right project management methodology can make or break your organization’s success. As we navigate through 2025, the debate between Kanban and Scrum continues to dominate boardrooms and development teams worldwide. With agile methodologies becoming the backbone of modern business operations, understanding these two powerful frameworks has never been more crucial for companies seeking to maintain their competitive edge.
1. Agile Methodologies
1.1. Definition
Agile methodologies represent a revolutionary approach to project management and software development that emphasizes flexibility, collaboration, and customer satisfaction over rigid processes and extensive documentation. Born from the need to address the shortcomings of traditional waterfall methods, agile frameworks have transformed how organizations deliver products and services across industries. The agile approach prioritizes iterative development, continuous feedback, and the ability to adapt quickly to changing requirements and market conditions.
The fundamental philosophy behind agile methodologies centers on breaking down complex projects into smaller, manageable increments that can be completed in short time frames. This approach enables teams to deliver working solutions more frequently, gather valuable feedback from stakeholders, and make necessary adjustments throughout the development process. Rather than following a predetermined plan from start to finish, agile teams embrace uncertainty and view change as an opportunity for improvement rather than a disruption.
1.2. 4 Key Values
The Agile Manifesto, established in 2001, outlines four core values that continue to guide agile practices in 2025. These values serve as the foundation for all agile methodologies, including Kanban and Scrum, and help organizations prioritize what truly matters in their development processes.
The first value emphasizes Individuals and Interactions over Processes and Tools. This principle recognizes that successful projects depend more on the quality of human communication and collaboration than on rigid procedures or sophisticated software tools. While processes and tools remain important, they should never become barriers to effective teamwork and problem-solving. Teams that prioritize face-to-face conversations, regular check-ins, and collaborative decision-making consistently outperform those that rely solely on formal documentation and structured workflows.
The second value prioritizes Working Software over Comprehensive Documentation. Rather than spending excessive time creating detailed specifications and documentation that may quickly become outdated, agile teams focus on delivering functional solutions that provide immediate value to users. This doesn’t mean documentation is ignored entirely, but rather that it should be concise, relevant, and maintained only when it serves a clear purpose in supporting the development process.
Customer Collaboration over Contract Negotiation represents the third core value, emphasizing the importance of maintaining ongoing dialogue with customers and stakeholders throughout the project lifecycle. Instead of defining everything upfront through rigid contracts, agile teams work closely with customers to understand their evolving needs and adjust their approach accordingly. This collaborative relationship ensures that the final product truly meets user expectations and business objectives.
The fourth value advocates for Responding to Change over Following a Plan. While having a plan remains important for providing direction and structure, agile teams understand that flexibility and adaptability are essential for success in today’s dynamic environment. Rather than viewing changes as failures or disruptions, agile practitioners embrace them as opportunities to improve the product and better serve their customers’ needs.
1.3. 12 Principles
The twelve principles of agile development provide specific guidance for implementing the four core values in practice. These principles have proven their relevance and effectiveness across various industries and continue to shape how organizations approach project management in 2025.
Customer satisfaction through early and continuous software delivery forms the foundation of agile practices. By delivering working solutions at regular intervals, teams can gather feedback early and often, ensuring that the final product meets user expectations while reducing the risk of costly changes later in the development process.
Welcome changing requirements, even late in development acknowledges that business needs and market conditions will inevitably evolve throughout any project. Agile teams build flexibility into their processes, allowing them to accommodate changes without derailing the entire project or compromising quality.
Deliver working software frequently emphasizes the importance of maintaining a steady rhythm of releases. Rather than waiting months or years for a complete solution, agile teams provide incremental value through regular deliveries, typically ranging from weeks to a few months.
Business people and developers must work together daily recognizes that successful projects require close collaboration between technical teams and business stakeholders. This principle breaks down traditional silos and ensures that everyone remains aligned on project goals and priorities.
Build projects around motivated individuals highlights the critical role of team members in achieving project success. Organizations that invest in creating supportive environments and trust their teams to make decisions consistently achieve better results than those that rely on heavy-handed management approaches.
Face-to-face conversation is the most efficient method of conveying information emphasizes the value of direct communication over written documentation or formal meetings. While remote work has become more prevalent, the principle still applies to ensuring that communication remains clear, timely, and effective.
Working software is the primary measure of progress shifts focus from traditional metrics like lines of code or hours worked to the actual value delivered to users. This principle helps teams maintain their focus on outcomes rather than outputs.
Agile processes promote sustainable development recognizes that long-term success requires maintaining a pace that can be sustained indefinitely. Teams that consistently work at reasonable speeds produce higher quality results and maintain better morale than those that rely on heroic efforts or overtime.
Continuous attention to technical excellence and good design enhances agility emphasizes that quality should never be sacrificed for speed. Teams that invest in maintaining high standards and good practices find that they can actually move faster and more reliably over time.
Simplicity, the art of maximizing the amount of work not done, is essential encourages teams to focus on what truly matters and avoid unnecessary complexity. This principle helps organizations avoid feature bloat and maintain focus on delivering core value to users.
The best architectures, requirements, and designs emerge from self-organizing teams recognizes that the people closest to the work are often best positioned to make technical decisions. Rather than relying on external architects or designers, agile teams are empowered to create solutions that meet their specific needs and constraints.
At regular intervals, the team reflects on how to become more effective establishes the practice of continuous improvement through regular retrospectives and feedback sessions. This principle ensures that teams continuously evolve and adapt their practices to become more efficient and effective over time.
Read more: What is a Software Development Kit (SDK)?
2. What is Kanban?
Kanban originated in Japanese manufacturing, specifically within Toyota’s production system, where it was developed as a method for managing workflow and reducing waste. The word “kanban” literally translates to “visual board” or “card” in Japanese, reflecting its fundamental approach of using visual cues to manage work processes. In the context of modern business and software development, Kanban has evolved into a sophisticated methodology that helps teams visualize their work, limit work in progress, and optimize flow efficiency.
The core philosophy of Kanban revolves around continuous improvement and evolutionary change rather than radical transformation. Unlike some other agile methodologies that require significant changes to existing processes, Kanban can be implemented gradually on top of current workflows. This approach makes it particularly attractive to organizations that want to adopt agile principles without disrupting their established practices entirely.
According to findings from the State of Kanban Report (2022) by Kanban University, 87% of respondents indicated that the Kanban method offered more or much more effective ways to manage work compared to previously employed methods and frameworks. This statistic underscores the growing recognition of Kanban’s effectiveness in improving team productivity and project outcomes.
Kanban operates on three fundamental principles that guide its implementation and practice. The first principle is to start with what you do now, recognizing that teams already have existing processes and workflows that provide value. Rather than requiring a complete overhaul of current practices, Kanban encourages incremental improvement and evolution. This approach reduces resistance to change and allows teams to maintain productivity while gradually optimizing their processes.
The second principle emphasizes agreeing to pursue incremental, evolutionary change. Kanban recognizes that sustainable improvement happens through small, continuous adjustments rather than dramatic reorganizations. This evolutionary approach allows teams to learn from each change and build upon successful modifications while minimizing the risk of disrupting productive workflows.
The third principle focuses on respecting the current process, roles, responsibilities, and titles. Unlike methodologies that prescribe specific roles or organizational structures, Kanban works within existing hierarchies and responsibilities. This approach makes it easier for organizations to adopt Kanban without requiring extensive reorganization or role redefinition.
The Kanban method is built around six core practices that help teams implement these principles effectively. Visualizing the workflow involves creating a visual representation of how work moves through the system, typically using a board with columns representing different stages of completion. This visualization helps team members understand the current state of all work items and identifies potential bottlenecks or areas for improvement.
Limiting work in progress (WIP) represents perhaps the most distinctive aspect of Kanban methodology. By establishing limits on how many items can be in progress at any given time, teams can focus their efforts more effectively and reduce the time it takes to complete individual tasks. WIP limits also help reveal capacity constraints and encourage teams to finish existing work before starting new items.
Managing flow involves monitoring how work moves through the system and making adjustments to optimize efficiency. Teams track metrics such as cycle time, lead time, and throughput to identify trends and opportunities for improvement. This data-driven approach helps teams make informed decisions about process changes and resource allocation.
Making policies explicit ensures that everyone understands the rules and expectations for how work should be handled. Rather than relying on implicit assumptions or verbal agreements, Kanban teams document their policies and make them visible to all team members. This transparency reduces confusion and helps maintain consistency in how work is processed.
Implementing feedback loops creates opportunities for teams to learn from their experiences and make continuous improvements. These feedback loops can take various forms, including regular review meetings, customer feedback sessions, and retrospectives. The goal is to create a culture of continuous learning and adaptation.
Improving collaboratively and evolving experimentally encourages teams to work together to identify and implement improvements. Rather than relying on external consultants or management directives, Kanban teams are empowered to experiment with changes and measure their effectiveness. This collaborative approach ensures that improvements are practical and sustainable.
Read more: SDK vs API: What are the differences?
3. What is Scrum?
Scrum represents one of the most widely adopted agile frameworks, with 63% stating they prefer it over others, maintaining its position as the most popular team-level Agile methodology since the Annual State of Agile Report from 2006. Developed in the early 1990s by Ken Schwaber and Jeff Sutherland, Scrum was specifically designed to address the challenges of complex product development where requirements are unclear or frequently changing.
The framework derives its name from the rugby term “scrum,” which describes a formation where team members work together intensively to move the ball forward. This metaphor captures the essence of Scrum’s collaborative approach, where cross-functional teams work together in short, focused intervals to deliver incremental value.
Scrum is built on three foundational pillars that guide its implementation and practice. Transparency requires that all aspects of the development process be visible to those responsible for the outcome. This includes making work progress, obstacles, and decisions visible to all team members and stakeholders. Transparency enables informed decision-making and helps build trust within the team and with external stakeholders.
Inspection involves regularly examining Scrum artifacts and progress toward goals to detect undesirable variances. This inspection happens at multiple levels, from daily stand-up meetings where team members examine their daily progress to sprint reviews where the team demonstrates completed work to stakeholders. Regular inspection helps teams identify problems early and make necessary adjustments before they become major issues.
Adaptation requires teams to adjust their approach when inspection reveals that aspects of the process are outside acceptable limits or when better ways of working are discovered. This adaptation might involve changing work practices, adjusting goals, or modifying the product based on feedback. The combination of regular inspection and adaptation creates a feedback loop that enables continuous improvement.
Scrum defines three specific roles that are essential for successful implementation. The Product Owner serves as the single point of contact for all product-related decisions and is responsible for maximizing the value of the product. This role involves managing the product backlog, defining user stories, setting priorities, and ensuring that the development team understands the requirements. The Product Owner must balance competing demands from various stakeholders while maintaining a clear vision for the product.
The Scrum Master acts as a facilitator and coach, helping the team implement Scrum practices effectively while removing obstacles that might impede progress. Unlike traditional project managers, Scrum Masters don’t direct the team’s work but instead focus on creating an environment where the team can be most effective. This involves facilitating meetings, protecting the team from external interruptions, and helping resolve conflicts or impediments.
The Development Team consists of professionals who work together to deliver the product increment. These teams are cross-functional, meaning they include all the skills necessary to complete the work, and self-organizing, meaning they decide how to accomplish their work without external direction. Development teams are typically small, with three to nine members, to ensure effective communication and collaboration.
Scrum operates through a series of time-boxed events that provide structure and opportunities for inspection and adaptation. The Sprint forms the heart of Scrum, representing a time-boxed iteration of typically one to four weeks during which the team creates a potentially shippable product increment. The fixed duration of sprints creates a predictable rhythm and forces teams to focus on delivering working software regularly.
Sprint Planning begins each sprint with the team selecting items from the product backlog and creating a plan for how to deliver them. This meeting involves the entire Scrum team and results in a sprint backlog that defines what will be accomplished during the upcoming sprint. The time-boxed nature of sprint planning ensures that teams don’t spend excessive time on planning activities.
Daily Scrum meetings provide opportunities for team members to synchronize their work and identify any impediments. These short, focused meetings help maintain team alignment and ensure that everyone stays informed about project progress. The daily cadence creates accountability and helps teams respond quickly to changing circumstances.
Sprint Review occurs at the end of each sprint and provides an opportunity for the team to demonstrate completed work to stakeholders and gather feedback. This meeting focuses on what was accomplished during the sprint and what should be done next. The collaborative nature of sprint reviews helps ensure that the product continues to meet stakeholder needs.
Sprint Retrospective gives the team time to reflect on their process and identify opportunities for improvement. This meeting focuses on how the team worked together during the sprint and what changes might help them be more effective in the future. The retrospective embodies Scrum’s commitment to continuous improvement and adaptation.
Scrum defines three primary artifacts that provide transparency and opportunities for inspection and adaptation. The Product Backlog represents an ordered list of everything that might be needed in the product. The Product Owner is responsible for maintaining this backlog, including its content, availability, and ordering. The dynamic nature of the product backlog allows teams to respond to changing requirements and priorities.
The Sprint Backlog consists of the product backlog items selected for the current sprint, plus a plan for delivering them. This artifact is owned by the development team and evolves throughout the sprint as the team learns more about the work required. The sprint backlog provides transparency into the team’s progress and helps identify potential issues early.
The Increment represents the sum of all product backlog items completed during a sprint, integrated with the work from all previous sprints. Each increment must be potentially shippable, meaning it meets the team’s definition of “done” and could be released to users if desired. This focus on creating working software regularly ensures that teams deliver value consistently.
4. Similarities between Kanban and Scrum
Despite their different origins and approaches, Kanban and Scrum share several fundamental similarities that make them both effective agile methodologies. Understanding these commonalities helps organizations appreciate why both frameworks have gained widespread adoption and why they often complement each other in practice.
Both methodologies embrace the core principles of agile development, prioritizing customer satisfaction, responding to change, and delivering working software frequently. They both emphasize the importance of team collaboration, continuous improvement, and transparency in all aspects of the development process. This shared foundation means that organizations familiar with one methodology can often adopt the other with relative ease.
Iterative and incremental delivery represents a key similarity between Kanban and Scrum. Both approaches focus on delivering value in small, manageable increments rather than waiting for a complete solution. While Scrum uses fixed-length sprints to create these increments, Kanban achieves similar results through continuous flow. This shared emphasis on incremental delivery helps teams gather feedback early and often, reducing the risk of building products that don’t meet user needs.
Continuous improvement forms another crucial similarity between the two methodologies. Both Kanban and Scrum emphasize the importance of regularly reflecting on processes and making adjustments to improve effectiveness. Scrum achieves this through sprint retrospectives, while Kanban incorporates improvement into its daily workflow through regular reviews and adjustments. This commitment to evolution ensures that teams using either methodology continue to optimize their performance over time.
Customer focus and collaboration represent shared values that both methodologies prioritize. Both approaches emphasize the importance of understanding customer needs and involving stakeholders in the development process. Whether through Scrum’s sprint reviews or Kanban’s continuous delivery model, both methodologies create opportunities for customer feedback and collaboration throughout the project lifecycle.
Team empowerment and self-organization characterize both Kanban and Scrum implementations. Both methodologies trust teams to make decisions about how to accomplish their work and encourage self-organization rather than top-down management. This empowerment leads to higher engagement, better problem-solving, and more effective solutions.
Transparency and visibility are fundamental to both approaches. Scrum achieves transparency through its defined roles, events, and artifacts, while Kanban uses visual boards and explicit policies to make work visible. Both methodologies recognize that transparency is essential for effective decision-making and continuous improvement.
Flexibility and adaptability represent core strengths of both frameworks. Both Kanban and Scrum are designed to accommodate changing requirements and evolving priorities. While they achieve this flexibility through different mechanisms, both methodologies enable teams to respond effectively to unexpected changes and opportunities.
Cross-functional teams are encouraged by both methodologies as a way to reduce dependencies and increase efficiency. Both Kanban and Scrum work best when teams include all the skills necessary to complete their work, reducing the need for external dependencies and handoffs that can slow down delivery.
Metrics and measurement play important roles in both approaches. Both methodologies emphasize the importance of tracking progress and using data to make informed decisions. While the specific metrics may differ, both frameworks encourage teams to measure their performance and use this information to guide improvements.
Waste reduction represents a shared goal of both methodologies. Both Kanban and Scrum aim to eliminate activities that don’t add value to the customer. Kanban achieves this through its focus on flow optimization and work-in-progress limits, while Scrum reduces waste through its emphasis on delivering potentially shippable increments and regular inspection and adaptation.
| Aspect | Kanban | Scrum |
|---|---|---|
| Approach | Continuous flow and evolutionary change | Time-boxed iterations with defined ceremonies |
| Roles | No prescribed roles, works with existing structure | Product Owner, Scrum Master, Development Team |
| Time Structure | Continuous delivery, no fixed time frames | Fixed-length sprints (1-4 weeks) |
| Planning | Continuous planning and prioritization | Sprint planning at the beginning of each sprint |
| Meetings | Optional, as needed | Daily Scrum, Sprint Planning, Sprint Review, Sprint Retrospective |
| Changes | Can be made anytime | Changes wait until next sprint |
| Metrics | Lead time, cycle time, throughput, cumulative flow | Sprint burndown, velocity, sprint goal achievement |
| Work Limits | WIP (Work in Progress) limits | Sprint capacity and commitment |
| Best for | Continuous improvement, maintenance, support work | Complex product development, feature delivery |
| Learning Curve | Gradual, can start with existing processes | Requires understanding of roles and ceremonies |
| Customer Feedback | Continuous, as items are completed | Structured feedback during Sprint Reviews |
| Flexibility | High flexibility, immediate response to changes | Moderate flexibility within sprint boundaries |
5. Kanban vs Scrum: Which One is Better?
The question of whether Kanban or Scrum is superior has no universal answer, as the effectiveness of each methodology depends heavily on organizational context, team characteristics, and project requirements. Kanban is the second most popular Agile methodology right now, with a reported 56% of people employing it in their teams, while Scrum maintains its position as the most widely adopted framework. This popularity distribution suggests that both methodologies serve different needs and preferences within the agile community.
Project complexity and predictability significantly influence which methodology might be more suitable. Scrum excels in environments where requirements are complex but relatively stable within sprint boundaries. The structured nature of Scrum, with its defined roles, events, and artifacts, provides a framework that helps teams manage complexity through focused iterations. The time-boxed nature of sprints creates predictable rhythms that can be particularly valuable for teams working on complex software development projects.
Kanban, conversely, thrives in environments where requirements are continuously evolving or where work arrives unpredictably. The continuous flow model of Kanban makes it particularly well-suited for support teams, maintenance work, or projects where priorities change frequently. The flexibility of Kanban allows teams to respond immediately to new requirements without waiting for the next sprint boundary.
Team maturity and experience also play crucial roles in determining which methodology might be more effective. Scrum’s prescriptive nature makes it an excellent choice for teams new to agile practices, as it provides clear guidance on roles, responsibilities, and processes. The structured approach helps teams develop good agile habits and provides a framework for learning and improvement.
More experienced teams might benefit from Kanban’s evolutionary approach, which allows them to optimize their existing processes gradually. Teams that have already developed strong collaboration skills and agile mindsets might find Kanban’s flexibility more conducive to their needs than Scrum’s structured approach.
Organizational culture and constraints significantly impact the success of either methodology. Organizations with hierarchical structures and formal processes might find Scrum’s defined roles and ceremonies easier to implement than Kanban’s more fluid approach. The Product Owner role in Scrum, for example, provides a clear interface between the development team and business stakeholders, which can be valuable in organizations with complex approval processes.
Organizations that value continuous improvement and have cultures that support experimentation might find Kanban’s evolutionary approach more aligned with their values. The ability to implement Kanban gradually without disrupting existing processes can be particularly attractive to organizations that are risk-averse or have regulatory constraints.
Work type and flow characteristics represent critical factors in choosing between methodologies. Scrum methodology typically tackles complex knowledge work, such as software development. Kanban is primarily concerned with improvements to processes, while Scrum emphasizes quicker production. Teams working on projects with clear deliverables and defined scope might find Scrum’s sprint-based approach more suitable, while teams handling continuous streams of work items might benefit from Kanban’s flow-based model.
Customer interaction and feedback requirements also influence methodology selection. Scrum’s sprint reviews provide structured opportunities for customer feedback, making it ideal for projects where regular stakeholder input is crucial. The predictable rhythm of Scrum makes it easier for customers to plan their involvement and provide timely feedback.
Kanban’s continuous delivery model might be more suitable for situations where customers need immediate access to new features or where feedback needs to be incorporated continuously rather than at predetermined intervals. The flexibility of Kanban allows teams to respond to customer needs without waiting for formal review cycles.
Resource allocation and capacity planning considerations can favor one methodology over another. Scrum’s time-boxed sprints make it easier to plan resource allocation and predict delivery timelines. The commitment mechanism of sprint planning helps organizations understand what can be accomplished within specific timeframes.
Kanban’s work-in-progress limits provide different insights into team capacity and can help organizations optimize resource utilization. The focus on flow metrics in Kanban can provide valuable data for capacity planning and performance optimization.
Hybrid approaches have gained popularity as organizations recognize that neither methodology needs to be implemented in isolation. Many successful teams combine elements of both approaches, using Scrum’s structured events for planning and retrospectives while adopting Kanban’s visual management and flow optimization techniques. This hybrid approach, sometimes called “Scrumban,” allows teams to benefit from the strengths of both methodologies.
The choice between Kanban and Scrum ultimately depends on finding the approach that best aligns with your organization’s specific needs, constraints, and goals. Rather than viewing it as an either-or decision, organizations should consider how elements of both methodologies might work together to create the most effective approach for their unique circumstances.
Read more: Svelte vs React: Which Framework is Better for You?
Conclusion
As we progress through 2025, both Kanban and Scrum have proven their effectiveness across various industries and contexts. The key to success lies not in choosing the “perfect” methodology but in understanding how these frameworks can be adapted to meet specific organizational needs.
Organizations should approach the Kanban versus Scrum decision by examining their unique circumstances, constraints, and goals. Teams working on complex software development projects with stable requirements might find Scrum’s structured approach more suitable, while teams handling continuous streams of work or operating in rapidly changing environments might benefit from Kanban’s flexibility.
The future of agile methodology adoption will likely see continued hybridization as organizations become more sophisticated in their understanding of these frameworks. Rather than rigid adherence to a single methodology, successful organizations will adapt and combine elements from multiple approaches to create solutions that work best for their specific context.
Ultimately, the most important factor is not which methodology is theoretically superior, but which approach enables your team to deliver maximum value to customers while maintaining sustainable work practices. Whether you choose Kanban, Scrum, or a hybrid approach, success depends on leadership commitment, team engagement, and willingness to continuously learn and adapt.