RICE
Reach × Impact × Confidence ÷ Effort
Best for: Data-driven teams
ICE
Impact × Confidence × Ease
Best for: Quick prioritization
2×2 Matrix
Impact vs Effort grid
Best for: Visual stakeholder alignment
High Impact + Low Effort
🎯 Quick Wins — Do First
High Impact + High Effort
🗓️ Strategic Bets — Plan Carefully
Prioritization Frameworks Compared
Different frameworks work for different contexts. Here's how the most popular prioritization frameworks compare:
RICE
Reach, Impact, Confidence, Effort
(Reach × Impact × Confidence) / EffortComprehensive framework that factors in user reach. Best for data-rich teams focused on growth metrics.
Pros:
- +Accounts for number of users affected
- +Confidence factor reduces speculation
- +Widely recognized and understood
- +Good for comparing diverse initiatives
Cons:
- -Requires reach data (may not have)
- -Can be time-consuming to score
- -Large reach can overpower other factors
ICE
Impact, Confidence, Ease
Impact × Confidence × EaseSimpler framework that trades reach for ease of execution. Good for quick prioritization.
Pros:
- +Fast and easy to apply
- +No reach data required
- +Intuitive for all stakeholders
- +Good for early-stage products
Cons:
- -Doesn't factor in user reach
- -More subjective than RICE
- -Ease can be hard to estimate
Value vs. Effort
2×2 Matrix
Plot items on Value (Y) vs. Effort (X) axesVisual framework that creates four quadrants: Quick Wins, Big Bets, Fill-ins, and Time Sinks.
Pros:
- +Highly visual and intuitive
- +Easy to facilitate in groups
- +Good for stakeholder alignment
- +No complex math required
Cons:
- -Less precise than scoring
- -Only two dimensions
- -Can oversimplify tradeoffs
WSJF
Weighted Shortest Job First
Cost of Delay / Job SizeSAFe framework that prioritizes by economic impact. Factors in time sensitivity and risk.
Pros:
- +Captures time-value of money
- +Good for deadline-driven work
- +Considers opportunity cost
- +Enterprise-ready framework
Cons:
- -Complex to calculate
- -Requires SAFe knowledge
- -Can be overkill for small teams
RICE Prioritization Template
Copy this template into your spreadsheet. The RICE score formula is included—just plug in your numbers.
Feature Name | Reach (users/qtr) | Impact (0.25-3) | Confidence (%) | Effort (person-months) | RICE Score ------------|-------------------|-----------------|----------------|----------------------|------------ Feature A | 10,000 | 2 | 80% | 2 | =B2*C2*D2/E2 Feature B | 50,000 | 1 | 60% | 4 | =B3*C3*D3/E3 Feature C | 5,000 | 3 | 100% | 1 | =B4*C4*D4/E4 Feature D | 25,000 | 0.5 | 80% | 3 | =B5*C5*D5/E5 Feature E | 100,000 | 1 | 50% | 6 | =B6*C6*D6/E6
How to Use:
- Copy the template into Google Sheets or Excel
- Replace the formulas in column F with actual spreadsheet formulas
- Add your features and fill in the scores
- Sort by RICE Score (descending) to see priorities
ICE Scoring Template
A simpler alternative when you don't have reach data. All factors are scored 1-10.
Feature Name | Impact (1-10) | Confidence (1-10) | Ease (1-10) | ICE Score ------------|---------------|-------------------|-------------|---------- Feature A | 8 | 7 | 6 | =B2*C2*D2 Feature B | 6 | 5 | 9 | =B3*C3*D3 Feature C | 10 | 8 | 3 | =B4*C4*D4 Feature D | 5 | 9 | 8 | =B5*C5*D5 Feature E | 7 | 6 | 7 | =B6*C6*D6
ICE Scoring Tips:
- • Impact (1-10): How much will this move your key metric?
- • Confidence (1-10): How sure are you about Impact and Ease?
- • Ease (1-10): How easy is this to implement? (10 = very easy)
RICE Scoring Guide
Use these guidelines to score consistently across your team:
Reach (users/quarter)
- 100,000+Affects most/all users
- 50,000-100,000Affects many users
- 10,000-50,000Affects a segment
- 1,000-10,000Affects a small group
- <1,000Affects very few users
Impact
- 3 (Massive)Transformative change to user experience
- 2 (High)Significant improvement users will notice
- 1 (Medium)Moderate improvement
- 0.5 (Low)Minor improvement
- 0.25 (Minimal)Barely noticeable change
Confidence
- 100%Strong data, clear requirements, proven approach
- 80%Good data, reasonable assumptions
- 50%Limited data, significant assumptions
Effort (person-months)
- 0.5~1 week of work
- 1~1 month of work
- 2~2 months of work
- 3~1 quarter of work
- 6+Multi-quarter initiative
How to Run a Prioritization Session
Prepare the Backlog
Collect all candidate features, improvements, and initiatives. Ensure each item has a clear one-line description. Remove duplicates and combine related items.
Gather Input Async
Before the meeting, have engineering estimate effort and data team provide reach numbers. Individual scoring before the meeting prevents groupthink.
Calibrate as a Group
Start by scoring 2-3 items together to calibrate. Discuss where scores differ significantly. Agree on a shared understanding of what "high impact" or "medium effort" means for your team.
Score Remaining Items
Work through the backlog, discussing items with significant disagreement. Document assumptions for each score. Don't get stuck on any single item— timebox discussions.
Review and Sanity Check
Sort by score and review the top 10. Does the ranking feel right? If something seems off, revisit its scores. The framework is a tool, not a dictator—use judgment.
Communicate Decisions
Share the prioritized list with stakeholders. Explain the scoring methodology. For items that didn't make the cut, explain what would need to change for them to be prioritized.
Best Practices
Do This
- +Document assumptions for each score
- +Use consistent time periods (per quarter)
- +Get engineering input on effort
- +Re-score when circumstances change
- +Share methodology with stakeholders
Avoid This
- -Gaming scores to get pet projects prioritized
- -Treating scores as absolute truth
- -Prioritizing without engineering input
- -Using 100% confidence without data
- -Ignoring strategic context
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a prioritization matrix?
A prioritization matrix is a tool that helps product teams objectively rank features, initiatives, or tasks based on defined criteria. Common frameworks include RICE (Reach, Impact, Confidence, Effort), ICE (Impact, Confidence, Ease), and Value vs. Effort matrices. The matrix produces a score for each item, enabling data-driven prioritization decisions.
When should I use RICE vs. ICE?
Use RICE when you have data on user reach and want to factor in how many people are affected. RICE is more rigorous and works well for growth-focused teams with analytics. Use ICE when you want a simpler, faster framework or when reach data is unavailable. ICE is popular for early-stage products or quick prioritization sessions.
How often should I re-prioritize?
Most teams do formal prioritization quarterly, aligned with planning cycles. However, you should revisit priorities when: (1) Major new opportunities emerge, (2) Significant scope changes occur, (3) Resources change substantially, (4) Key assumptions prove wrong. Continuous prioritization is better than rigid quarterly cycles.
Who should be involved in prioritization?
Core participants: PM (facilitates), Engineering lead (effort estimates), Design lead (impact input). Stakeholders to consult: Sales/CS (customer needs), Data/Analytics (reach and impact data), Leadership (strategic alignment). Avoid too many voices in the room—keep decision-making group small but well-informed.
How do I handle stakeholder pushback on prioritization?
Share your framework and scoring transparently. Show the data behind each score. Invite stakeholders to challenge specific inputs, not overall conclusions. If they disagree with a score, ask "What data would change your mind?" Sometimes recalibrating one factor can resolve disagreements while maintaining objectivity.
What if my prioritization scores are all similar?
If scores cluster together: (1) Your inputs may be too coarse—use more granular scales, (2) You may need additional criteria—add strategic alignment or customer segment focus, (3) Consider forced ranking for the top cluster, (4) Look for non-scoring factors like dependencies or sequencing that can break ties.
Should I prioritize bugs and tech debt the same way?
Bugs and tech debt often need different treatment. Critical bugs bypass prioritization—just fix them. For tech debt, consider a separate budget (e.g., 20% of capacity) rather than competing directly with features. When tech debt does compete, factor in hidden costs like slower development velocity and team morale.
How do I estimate effort without detailed specs?
Use T-shirt sizing (S/M/L/XL) or Fibonacci points for rough estimates. Get engineering input on relative effort, not absolute time. Compare to similar past work. Accept uncertainty—effort estimates at prioritization time are directional, not commitments. Refine estimates as you move to detailed planning.
About the Author
Aditi Chaturvedi
·Founder, Best PM JobsAditi is the founder of Best PM Jobs, helping product managers find their dream roles at top tech companies. With experience in product management and recruiting, she creates resources to help PMs level up their careers.