Do you like cookies?

We use cookies to understand how you explore our pages – because, just like you, we're always learning and aiming to get better every day! You can accept all for a full experience, or decline if you're not feeling the cookies today.

Skip to content

ICE Scoring

Impact, Confidence, and Ease: three simple dimensions that turn subjective priority debates into a quantifiable score. ICE is the go-to framework for growth teams running rapid experiments.

What is ICE scoring?

ICE was popularized by Sean Ellis, the godfather of growth hacking, as a lightweight way to rank experiments. Each idea receives three scores on a 1-10 scale: Impact (how much will this move the metric we care about?), Confidence (how sure are we that it will work?), and Ease (how quickly and cheaply can we implement it?).

The three scores are multiplied together to produce a single composite number. The simplicity is the point: teams can score dozens of ideas in a single brainstorming session and immediately see which experiments deserve attention first.

Breaking down Impact, Confidence, and Ease

Impact measures the potential upside. A score of 10 means game-changing; a 1 means barely noticeable. Confidence reflects how much evidence you have: direct data from a previous test earns a 10, while a pure hunch might be a 2. Ease captures the cost of execution: a one-hour tweak scores 10, whereas a quarter-long engineering project might score 1.

By separating these dimensions, ICE prevents teams from falling in love with big ideas that are expensive to test and uncertain to succeed. It naturally surfaces the quick, confident wins.

How to run an ICE scoring session

Gather your list of ideas and ensure everyone understands the target metric. Each participant scores every idea independently across all three dimensions. Average the individual scores to reduce personal bias. Multiply the averaged Impact, Confidence, and Ease scores for each idea to get the final ICE score. Sort by score, pick the top experiments, and run them.

After each experiment, update your Confidence score based on the actual result. Over time, your team develops a calibrated sense of what a 7-Impact or a 3-Ease really means, making the process faster and more reliable with each iteration.

ICE vs. WSJF: when to use which

ICE shines in growth and experimentation contexts where speed matters and outcomes are uncertain. It is deliberately simple: three factors, one multiplication. WSJF, on the other hand, adds Time Criticality and Risk Reduction as explicit dimensions, making it more suitable for prioritizing ongoing work where delay cost and risk are significant.

In practice, the two frameworks share a common DNA: both divide some measure of value by some measure of cost, both use relative scoring, and both exist to replace gut feeling with structured thinking. The best teams choose the model that matches their workflow and apply it consistently.

How octo.do applies ICE thinking

While octo.do uses the more comprehensive WSJF formula, the spirit of ICE runs through its design. Every task you add is scored across multiple dimensions of value and divided by effort, giving you the same rapid, quantified prioritization that ICE provides. The difference is that octo.do also accounts for Time Criticality and Risk Reduction, giving you a richer signal.

The eight-task constraint then ensures you only commit to the experiments and tasks that rank highest, eliminating the common growth-team trap of running too many experiments at once and learning nothing.

Score your tasks, not your gut feelings. Start with octo.do for free.