Methodology Comparison
FLOQ vs Everything
FLOQ isn't built in a vacuum. Here's how it compares to every major approach — and why it's the right choice for AI-augmented teams in 2026.
Scrum / Agile
Sprint-based
- 2-week sprints with hard gates
- 5 recurring ceremonies every cycle
- Story points & velocity metrics
- Sprint planning, standups, reviews
- AI is just an autocomplete tool
FLOQ wins on
Continuous flow
- No timeboxes — signal-driven cadence
- 80% fewer ceremonies
- Impact scores over story points
- Floq Rate over velocity
- AI is a first-class Builder
Key difference: "Scrum was designed for human-only teams writing every line. FLOQ is designed for human-AI teams where code generation is instant."
Kanban
Task throughput
- WIP limits, pull system
- Visualize task flow
- No timeboxes (similar to FLOQ)
- Measures tasks completed
- No outcome accountability
FLOQ adds
Outcome delivery
- Outcome-based success criteria
- AI Pair integration per ticket
- Signal Reviews (metric-triggered)
- Explicit pivot mechanism
- Measures metric movement, not tasks
Key difference: "Kanban optimizes task flow. FLOQ optimizes outcome delivery. You can complete 100 Kanban cards and move zero metrics."
Shape Up (Basecamp)
Cycle-based
- 6-week cycles (still time-bound)
- Betting table & pitches
- Circuit breaker stops runaway work
- Async-first communication
- Predates AI integration era
FLOQ extends
Signal-driven
- No time cycles at all
- Signal-driven pivots replace cycles
- Real-time metric tracking
- AI Pairs & continuous deployment
- Sub-day delivery cycles possible
Key difference: "Shape Up still uses time cycles (6 weeks). FLOQ removes the time cycle entirely and replaces it with signal-driven pivots."
SAFe (Scaled Agile)
Ceremony at scale
- PI Planning events (2 days)
- Agile Release Trains
- Program Increments
- 100+ defined roles
- 20% of time in planning ceremonies
FLOQ replaces
Async coordination
- Currents align teams, no PI Planning
- Async Pulses replace standups
- No Agile Release Trains
- Minimal roles, maximal clarity
- AI-native from the ground up
Key difference: "SAFe scales Agile ceremonies, which scales the overhead. FLOQ scales via async Pulses and Current coordination — no trains required."
Lean / XP
Philosophically aligned
- Lean: eliminate waste, value stream
- XP: pair programming, TDD, CI
- Continuous improvement focus
- Strong engineering discipline
- Predates AI-native development
FLOQ extends
AI-native evolution
- Friction Tax = Lean's waste concept
- Ship Standard extends XP's CI
- AI Pairs extend XP pair programming
- Outcome measurement layer added
- Built for the AI-generation era
Key difference: "FLOQ is philosophically aligned with Lean and XP — it extends both with AI-native patterns and explicit outcome measurement."
No Process / "Just Ship"
Accidental chaos
- No explicit accountability
- No measurable success targets
- No quality gates
- No learning loops
- Fast until it breaks
FLOQ provides
Intentional flow
- Outcome Tickets with measurable targets
- Ship Standard quality gates
- Signal Reviews — explicit learning
- Floq Rate — honest accountability
- Fast AND disciplined
Key difference: "FLOQ is NOT 'just ship stuff.' It has explicit accountability, explicit quality gates, and explicit learning loops. Intentional flow, not accidental chaos."
| Dimension | Scrum | Kanban | Shape Up | SAFe | ✅ FLOQ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Time structure | 2-week sprints | Continuous, no timeboxes | 6-week cycles | Program Increments (8–12 wks) | No time structure — signal-driven |
| Work unit | User Story | Card / task | Scope / pitch | Feature / Epic / Story | Outcome Ticket |
| Success metric | Velocity (pts/sprint) | Throughput (cards/time) | Shipped scope | PI Objectives met % | Floq Rate (outcomes/period) |
| AI support | Tool / autocomplete | Tool / autocomplete | Tool / autocomplete | Tool / autocomplete | First-class Builder role |
| Ceremony load | 7–11 weeks/person/year | Low (standups only) | Low (cycle kickoff) | Very high (PI Planning + ARTs) | ~1–2 weeks/person/year |
| Deployment cadence | End of sprint | When ready | End of cycle | Per release train schedule | Continuous (every commit) |
| Scale mechanism | Scrum of Scrums | Kanban boards per team | Multiple cycles | Agile Release Trains | Currents + Current Board |
| Meeting overhead | High (~20% of time) | Low | Low | Very high (>20% at scale) | Minimal (async Pulses) |
| Outcome tracking | None (effort-based) | None (task-based) | Shipped scope only | PI Objectives (loose) | Explicit signal thresholds |
| Best for | Human-only teams, predictable work | Support / ops teams | Small product teams, async orgs | Large enterprises already in SAFe | AI-augmented teams, 2026+ |
Side by Side
FLOQ vs. Agile/Scrum: Full Comparison
| Dimension | ❌ Agile/Scrum | ✅ FLOQ |
|---|---|---|
| Time Unit | 2-week sprint | No time unit — continuous flow |
| Work Unit | User Story | Outcome Ticket |
| Success Metric | Velocity (points/sprint) | Floq Rate (outcomes/period) |
| Planning | Sprint Planning (2–4 hrs) | Launchpad (30 min, on-demand) |
| Status Updates | Daily Standup (15 min sync) | Pulse (async, 60 seconds) |
| Reviews | Sprint Review (end of sprint) | Ship & Show (when something ships) |
| Retrospectives | Every 2 weeks (calendar) | Signal Review (triggered by signals) |
| AI Role | Tool (autocomplete) | Team member (Builder) |
| Estimation | Story Points (effort) | Impact Score (value) |
| Deployment | End of sprint | Continuous (every commit) |
| Ceremony Load | 7–11 weeks/person/year | ~1–2 weeks/person/year |
| Overhead Reduction | — | ~80% reduction |