Growth Strategy Prioritization Tool
Rank growth ideas by Impact, Confidence and Ease, and kill the noise.
Your highest-ICE bet is Add live chat to pricing page at 7.3/10. Run it next. ICE keeps you honest, a flashy high-impact idea with low confidence and ease loses to a boring, sure, easy win more often than founders expect.
Score each 1–10. ICE is deliberately blunt, its job is to force a ranked order and end debate, not to be precise. Re-score as you learn.
About this calculator
Every growth team has a backlog longer than its capacity, and the loudest idea in the room usually isn't the best one. ICE scoring forces a blunt, defensible ranking so debate ends and execution starts, rating each idea on Impact, Confidence, and Ease strips away the persuasiveness of whoever's pitching and leaves you with a number.
How to use it
- Add each growth idea by name.
- Score Impact, Confidence, and Ease from 1 to 10 for each: Impact is how much it moves the needle if it works, Confidence is how sure you are it will work, Ease is how quickly and cheaply it can ship.
- Read the ranked list, sorted highest ICE score first, with the top idea called out as the next bet.
Methodology
ICE score is the simple average of the three inputs for each idea: (Impact + Confidence + Ease) ÷ 3, giving a score out of 10.
Ideas are ranked in descending order of ICE score, the highest-scoring idea is surfaced as the recommended next bet.
The framework is intentionally blunt, it's designed to force a ranked order and end prioritization debates, not to precisely quantify expected value. A flashy high-impact idea that scores low on confidence and ease will lose to a boring, sure, cheap win more often than most teams expect, and that's the point.
Scores are subjective inputs from your team, not measured data, so ICE is only as good as the honesty of the ratings. Re-score as you learn more about what actually works.
FAQ
Because ICE averages all three factors equally. A huge-impact idea with low confidence and high effort (say, a 9/3/2) scores 4.7, while a modest-impact, high-confidence, easy win (say, 5/8/9) scores 7.3. ICE is designed to surface exactly that kind of trade-off, big swings that are unlikely to land or expensive to test lose to smaller sure bets.
Ideally the people closest to execution and the data, a marketer scoring their own idea's impact tends to inflate it. Having a second person or the whole team score independently, then averaging or discussing outliers, produces more honest numbers than letting each idea's champion self-score.
RICE adds a Reach factor (how many users or customers it touches) and divides by Effort instead of averaging Ease, making it more granular for product prioritization at scale. ICE is deliberately simpler and faster, better suited to a smaller backlog of growth experiments where speed of decision matters more than precision.
Yes, that's the whole value of the framework. A launched idea should get its Confidence score updated based on real results, and remaining backlog items should be re-ranked against what you've just learned. ICE is a living prioritization tool, not a one-time ranking.