Agile Framework Picker,
7 Questions.

Each answer scores all five frameworks. The framework with the highest aggregate score is the recommendation; the runner-up is shown as an alternative. The questions are weighted by what most decisively differentiates the frameworks in practice — work-type and predictability matter more than ceremony tolerance.

Yes — Scrumban is the most common hybrid in practice. It uses Scrum's cadence (planning, retro, review at fixed intervals) with Kanban's flow inside the sprint (no fixed scope, WIP limits, pull-based). Most teams calling themselves "Scrum" are actually doing Scrumban without naming it.

Then you're either doing your own thing (fine, if it's intentional) or you're doing nothing (not fine — pick one and at least be deliberate). The five options here cover ~95% of effective product-engineering teams. If you genuinely don't fit, you probably want bespoke advice from someone who knows your context.

You can, but it costs more than people expect. Plan for 4-6 weeks of friction, expect velocity to drop, and pick *one* framework — not "we'll do Scrum but also Kanban for support work." Switching too often makes the team cynical about the choice.

Those are scaling frameworks for organisations with multiple teams (50-500+ engineers). The picker is calibrated for single-team product engineering. If you're scaling, the right starting question is "what works for one team here?" — once that's solid, scaling decisions are easier.

Less than people think. The framework is the scaffolding; what actually determines team performance is the engineering practices, the goal-clarity, and the trust on the team. A team running Scrum badly underperforms a team running Kanban well, and vice versa. Pick one, commit, learn.