Agile, Waterfall or Hybrid Agile? Three methodologies explained

Methodology

How it works

Pros

Cons

Agile is about staying nimble. Rather than locking teams into rigid plans, agile embraces change as part of the process. Working in sprints (short, iterative cycles governed by ceremonies) teams deliver real value quickly and often, then gather feedback, adjust, and keep moving. Agile fosters close collaboration between developers, stakeholders, and customers, ensuring everyone stays aligned and the product evolves in the right direction. Ultimately this creates better products, happier customers, and teams that can pivot without breaking stride.

• Highly adaptable to changing or emerging requirements

• Regular client feedback ensures workstreams are less likely to go off track

• Incremental delivery and benefits realisation

• Squads are focused on delivery rather than onerous governance or documentation

• Can be hard to implement in the ‘real world’, where stakeholders need certainty around budget, time and scope

• Less predictable and therefore harder to manage stakeholder expectation

• Requires continual active client participation

• Generally requires dedicated (rather than fractional) squad members to succeed

Waterfall is the classic ‘measure twice, cut once’ approach, generally with a ‘big bang’ delivery at the end. Each phase (requirements, design, development, testing, deployment) flows sequentially into the next, with no turning back. You plan everything upfront, lock in the scope, and execute step by step until you reach the finish line. It works well for projects with clear, unchanging requirements where you can't afford mid-stream surprises. The trade-off is less flexibility, meaning it’s tough to pivot mid-delivery.

• Crystal-clear structure makes it easy to plan, budget, and explain to executives

• Perfect when requirements are nailed down and won't budge

• Predictable milestones give stakeholders the certainty they need

• Documentation is thorough, making handoffs and audits straightforward

• Little flexibility if requirements shift mid-flight, you're stuck or facing costly rework

• Clients stay on the sidelines until delivery, which can mean surprises (and disappointment) come late

• If you got the requirements wrong upfront, you won't know until it's too late 

• 'Big bang' delivery at the end means no early wins or course corrections

Hybrid Agile aims to take the best from both worlds, combining Waterfall's tight control of time, budget and scope with Agile's flexible execution. Teams might lock in requirements upfront but deliver them through sprints and iterative cycles. Or they'll use phases for governance while keeping development nimble and collaborative. It's ideal when you need predictability for stakeholders but want room to adapt as you learn. It requires discipline, but done right, you get structure without rigidity.

• Balances flexibility with structure; you get room to adapt without abandoning accountability

• Gives stakeholders certainty on the non-negotiables while keeping delivery responsive

• Regular show & tells and retros surface problems early, before they become disasters

• Can pivot when needed without torching the entire plan

• Easily becomes the worst of both worlds, meaning bureaucracy without agility, plans without commitment

• Ceremonies can feel like box-ticking theatre if they're not tied to real flexibility in scope or budget

• Requires careful calibration and discipline; sloppy execution leaves everyone frustrated

• Stakeholders may expect Waterfall certainty while teams operate with Agile assumptions—misalignment waiting to happen