There's a fundamental misunderstanding in your question.<p>To begin with, Agile isn't a methodology. It's a way of thinking about development—a philosophy—that's defined at agilemanifesto.org.<p>There are a bunch of methods that follow the Agile philosophy. Scrum and Extreme Programming are the most well known. Extreme Programming was popular in the early 2000s, but has since been eclipsed by Scrum.<p>There are a bunch of companies and methods that claim to follow the Agile philosophy, but don't. SAFe ("Scaled Agile Framework") is the most well known. Additionally, because Scrum is so popular, most of the companies who claim to be "Agile" are actually using some cargo cult version of Scrum.<p>So you'll get a lot of people complaining about Agile, when they're actually complaining about crappy Scrum and SAFe implementations.<p>Personally, as someone who's been involved with the Agile community for a few decades, I would love to see Scrum replaced with Extreme Programming. My experience is that XP works much better than Scrum in practice, because it emphasizes engineering practices, whereas Scrum puts too much focus on Scrummasters and planning. Although Scrum has some good ideas, they're very nuanced, and tend to be misunderstood in a way that leads to micromanagement.<p>Edit, since the OP was changed:<p>Yes, Scrum works when done correctly. But most people don't do it correctly, because it's very bare-bones, which results in people layering their own preconceptions on top of it, most of which are distinctly anti-Agile. Additionally, Scrum pioneered the "Certified Scrummaster" (CSM) and "Certified Scrum Trainer" (CST) certifications, which were so lucrative that they attracted a lot of incompetent people into teaching Scrum. The CSM course is also too short and shallow to really teach people how to lead Scrum teams effectively, but is marketed as a panacea.<p>The result has been a giant garbage fire.