RICE vs ICE is one of the most common comparisons in product prioritization. Both frameworks share similar DNA but serve different purposes.
In this guide, I'll break down both frameworks and help you decide which one fits your team best.
| Factor | RICE | ICE |
|---|---|---|
| Acronym | Reach, Impact, Confidence, Effort | Impact, Confidence, Ease |
| Formula | (R × I × C) / E | I × C × E |
| Created by | Intercom | Sean Ellis (GrowthHackers) |
| Best for | Consumer products, large user bases | Quick experiments, growth hacking |
| Complexity | More comprehensive | Simpler, faster |
| Data required | User metrics (reach data) | Minimal data needed |
RICE is a prioritization framework developed by Intercom's product team. It evaluates features based on four factors:
Formula: RICE Score = (Reach × Impact × Confidence) / Effort
The key differentiator is the Reach factor, which quantifies how many people a feature will actually impact. This makes RICE particularly useful when you have solid user data.
ICE was created by Sean Ellis, the growth hacking pioneer. It's a simpler framework with three factors:
Formula: ICE Score = Impact × Confidence × Ease
ICE was designed for rapid experimentation. When you're running lots of growth experiments, you need to prioritize quickly without getting bogged down in data collection.
The fundamental difference between RICE and ICE is the Reach factor.
Consider two features:
With ICE, if both features have similar Impact and Ease scores, they might rank equally. But with RICE, Feature A would score much higher because it reaches more users.
Reach becomes critical when:
Reach is less important when:
Choose RICE when:
Choose ICE when:
Absolutely. Many teams use both frameworks for different purposes:
This hybrid approach gives you the best of both worlds: strategic rigor for big decisions and speed for tactical experiments.
If you're currently using ICE and want more precision:
If RICE feels too heavy for your needs:
We offer free calculators and templates for both frameworks:
RICE Resources:
ICE Resources:
Both RICE and ICE are solid frameworks. The right choice depends on your context:
The best framework is the one your team will actually use consistently. Start simple with ICE, and graduate to RICE when you have the data and need for it.
Ready to put these frameworks into practice? Try RICE prioritization or ICE prioritization in ProductLift to score, rank, and roadmap your features.
Keep reading:
Join over 3,051 product managers and see how easy it is to build products people love.
Did you know 80% of software features are rarely or never used? That's a lot of wasted effort.
SaaS software companies spend billions on unused features. In 2025, it was $29.5 billion.
We saw this problem and decided to do something about it. Product teams needed a better way to decide what to build.
That's why we created ProductLift - to put all feedback in one place, helping teams easily see what features matter most.
In the last five years, we've helped over 3,051 product teams (like yours) double feature adoption and halve the costs. I'd love for you to give it a try.
Founder & Digital Consultant
See how real product teams use RICE, ICE, MoSCoW, and other prioritization frameworks. 6 practical examples with actual scores, decisions, and outcomes.
A practical decision guide for choosing the right product prioritization framework. Answer 4 questions to find the best framework for your team size, data, and decision type.
Side-by-side comparison of 10 product prioritization frameworks. Compare RICE, ICE, MoSCoW, Kano, and others on scoring type, complexity, data needs, and best use cases.
The best prioritization frameworks for startups at every stage. From pre-PMF to growth, learn which framework fits your team size, data, and speed requirements.
Learn when to promote feature requests to your roadmap, how to merge duplicates, notify voters, and keep credibility through the full lifecycle.