Scrum or Kanban?

Scrum and Kanban often get mentioned in the same breath, as two variants of “agile work.” They’re related, but they solve different problems. If the team picks a method based on trend rather than on what the work actually looks like, the result is friction. Here’s the difference in plain terms, what kind of work fits each, and why most teams in practice end up somewhere in between.

The basic difference: sprints or flow

The core of the difference is about how work is packaged in time.

Scrum divides the work into sprints – fixed time periods, often two weeks. Before each sprint, the team commits to a set amount of work, works on it during the period, and delivers a result at the end. Then the cycle starts over. The rhythm is predictable and gives natural opportunities to plan, showcase, and reprioritize.

Kanban has no sprints. Instead, tasks flow through the team continuously: a new task gets pulled in when there’s capacity, independent of any calendar. The central tool is a limit on work in progress (a WIP limit), which keeps down how much can be active at once. The focus is on a steady, unbroken flow rather than on cycles.

In short: Scrum plans in time boxes with commitments, Kanban optimizes an ongoing flow without them.

Which type of work fits which method?

The choice should be driven by the nature of the work, not by whatever sounds most modern.

Scrum shines when you’re building something new against a plan. The sprint rhythm gives a steady pace, predictable deliveries, and clear points to check direction. It fits product development where you roughly know where you’re headed and want to get there in structured steps.

Kanban shines when the work is unpredictable. Maintenance and support live on incoming tickets that can’t wait for the next sprint – an urgent bug has to be handled right away. The continuous flow and the WIP limits let the team handle whatever comes up without blowing up a planned cycle. Forcing support work into two-week sprints usually just means the sprint keeps getting interrupted.

A concrete example

Picture a team that first builds a new app and then maintains it. During the build phase, Scrum fits: the team plans in two-week sprints, delivers features in clear steps, and you get a predictable rhythm to follow. Everyone knows what should be done and when.

Once the app is launched, the nature of the work changes. Now it’s about bug fixes, minor improvements, and support tickets coming in continuously and irregularly. This is where the sprint model starts to chafe – an urgent bug can’t wait two weeks. The team then naturally shifts toward Kanban, with a flow of tickets and a WIP limit keeping things in order. Same team, same product, but different methods at different stages.

The hybrid is the norm – and what you should expect

In practice, few teams follow either method by the book. The most common reality is a hybrid, sometimes called Scrumban: you keep the sprint rhythm but add WIP limits and a more flow-based way of handling what comes in between planning sessions. That’s not cheating, it’s common sense – taking what works from both.

For you as a client, the key insight is that the method’s name matters less than you might think. What you should care about is the reporting: do you get regular, understandable insight into what’s been delivered and what remains? Can you see the direction and reprioritize when needed? Both Scrum and Kanban can give you that – expect that visibility regardless of whatever word the team puts on its way of working.

At Weapp, we adapt the way of working to where the product is at, and keep the reporting clear regardless of method. Want to know how we’d set up your project? Read about our services or get in touch with a short description.