Agile vs Waterfall: The Great Software Development Debate


Agile and Waterfall are two of the most common software development methodologies. They show drastically diverse methods for overseeing software development initiatives.

Agile places a strong emphasis on developing functional software gradually. Throughout the project, requirements may alter and develop. Several Agile frameworks, such as Scrum and Kanban provide particular methods for iterative development.

In contrast, Waterfall follows a linear, sequential process. The entire project scope is defined early on, and requirements are acquired beforehand. Before going on to the next stage of development, each one must be finished. This traditional approach provides structure and control.

Both methodologies have their advantages and disadvantages. Agile values responding to change and customer collaboration. Waterfall values comprehensive planning and documentation. Understanding their differences can help teams choose the right approach for a given project.

Talking about the hardware requirements, which is important in software development, are 4 Core CPUs, 4 GB of RAM and 200 GB SSD storage or the higher configuration.


Agile and waterfall have distinctly different origins.

Waterfall was developed in the 1970s for physical engineering projects like bridges and buildings. It emerged as an attempt to provide more structure and predictability to complex construction processes. The waterfall technique outlines sequential levels that proceed linearly from beginning to finish, without going back to prior stages.

In comparison, Agile was created in 2001 from the collaboration of 17 developers and emerged as a bendy and collaborative technique for software development, which challenges the waterfall model’s rigidity.


The software development lifecycle is structured substantially differently in agile and waterfall development methods. The waterfall methodology follows a step-by-step protocol. It proceeds through fixed phases like requirements, design, implementation, testing, and maintenance. Before going on to the following phase, each one needs to be finished. It is not possible to return to a prior stage.

Unlike traditional models, agile methodologies are iterative, breaking work into small sprints with continuous reflection, adaptation, and the delivery of incremental product increments.


On a Waterfall team, roles tend to be clearly defined and siloed. For example, there are dedicated developers, testers, product managers, etc. Each role focuses on their specific tasks in isolation. Agile teams prioritize cross-functional collaboration, with flexible roles that encourage members, including developers, to engage in customer collaboration, refine requirements, and make autonomous decisions on completing tasks, diverging from rigid role assignments in traditional communication structures.


Planning is one of the core differences between agile and waterfall methodologies. In waterfall, all requirements must be defined upfront before development starts. Agile takes an iterative approach to planning, with frequent and flexible planning activities occurring before each increment or sprint, in contrast to the extensive upfront planning typically associated with traditional project management.


The delivery process refers to how the software is built and delivered throughout the development cycle.

In waterfall development, working software is delivered only at the end of sequential phases, often resulting in a “big bang” release. Agile, in contrast, prioritizes early and frequent delivery of functional software through iterations, producing potentially shippable product increments at the end of each sprint, fostering a continuous flow of deliverables and enabling frequent releases and continuous integration throughout the project. 


Quality is a critical concern for any software development project. Agile and Waterfall take different approaches to ensuring quality:

In Waterfall, qualityassurance happens at the end of each phase. Extensive documentation and requirements gathering early on aim to minimize defects entering the coding phase. Once development starts, quality testing takes place only after each component is built. Agile focuses on building quality in throughout the iterative development process. With continuous integration and testing, issues are caught early before problems compound. Short iterations allow the team to frequently validate software quality. The collaborative nature of Agile enables ongoing communication about quality standards.


During the development process, Agile and Waterfall vary primarily in that Agile allows for requirement changes and adaptation to changing conditions.

Before any work begins, all needs must be specified according to the waterfall methodology. This implies that it may be challenging, costly, and time-consuming to adopt needs changes once development has started and the requirements have been established. Often this leads to products that don’t fully meet customer needs or experiences feature creep.

In contrast, Agile methodologies are designed to embrace change during development. Requirements can be adapted iteratively based on customer feedback, changing business goals, or technical challenges that arise during development. Because work is broken down into small increments delivered in short iterations, changes can be incorporated relatively easily without major rework.

When to Use

Each methodology—waterfall and agile—has advantages and works well for particular kinds of projects. Here’s a look at when each approach excels:


●          Rapidly changing or ambiguous requirements

●          New development with unknown elements

●          Quickly delivering incremental value

●          Short development cycles (2 weeks to 2 months)

●          Customer/user feedback is critical

●          Adapting and improving as you go

●          Smaller scale projects and teams

Agile is great for software projects with shifting requirements or unknowns. The iterative approach allows teams to adapt, experiment, get feedback, and refine as they build. Agile delivers faster incremental value and thrives on change.


●          Clear, fixed requirements

●          Sequential process from start to finish

●          Defined roles and responsibilities

●          Rigorous documentation is critical

●          Formal signoff and approval at each stage

●          Low-risk projects with few unknowns

●          Larger scale, enterprise-level projects

Waterfall excels when requirements are clearly defined upfront and strict governance is required. The linear phases help coordinate tasks across large, distributed teams. Waterfall reduces risk and uncertainty but has less flexibility to change.

The type of project and work environment typically determines if agile or waterfall is better suited. Both approaches have pros and cons that make them more appropriate for certain scenarios.

Back to top button