OKR Software: 12 Tools Compared for Small Teams
OKR software compared: 12 tools, the seat minimums that block small teams, cost at 5, 15, and 40 people, and which vendors survived the category shakeout.
Something happened to the OKR software market that almost no comparison mentions, and it should change how you pick a tool to track your objectives and key results. Microsoft bought an OKR platform, folded it into its own suite, and then shut the whole thing down at the end of 2025 with no replacement.
The two largest enterprise players also merged, and an earlier well-regarded tracker, Koan, was absorbed into a product that no longer exists under its own name. This is a consolidating market, and for a small team choosing a system it hopes to still be running in three years, whether the vendor survives is a selection criterion rather than trivia.
The second thing missing from most rankings is the arithmetic that decides availability. Published rates in this category sit between $6 and $11 per user per month, which looks affordable for a small team. Then the floors appear: a five-seat minimum here and a $4,000 annual contract minimum there, neither of which cares how many people you have. The seat rate is not the price for a small team, and rankings built on it mislead exactly the readers most likely to be reading them.
This page covers 12 platforms across four groups: lightweight trackers built for small teams, broader OKR platforms, goal modules inside HR and performance software, and goal features inside work management tools you may already pay for. It flags every published minimum, models monthly cost at 5, 15, and 40 people, and asks the question the vendor content avoids: whether you need any of this yet.
What OKR software does
OKR software stores objectives and key results, records progress against them, shows how team goals connect to company goals, prompts people to update, and reports on where things stand at the end of a cycle.
The framework itself is older and simpler than the software built around it. John Doerr learned the system from Intel CEO Andy Grove in the 1970s, as Harvard Business Review recounted in 2018. Keep that in mind through every comparison below: the tool does not make the practice work.
Goal setting software and OKR software are not the same category
Goal setting software is the wider category and OKR software is the opinionated subset of it. A goal management tool will hold whatever format you already use: annual objectives, SMART goals, individual development targets, or a number a manager reviews once a quarter. An OKR tool insists on the structure instead.
That distinction decides which product fits. If your goals live inside review cycles and read as individual commitments, the goal tracking sold inside HR platforms matches how you already work. If you want quarterly objectives with two to five measurable key results, cascaded across teams and scored at the end, the dedicated trackers enforce that and the general tools will not.
Cost splits along that line too. Goal tracking inside a work management tool imposes no method and comes only with paid plans, so it costs nothing extra only if your plan already includes it. The free OKR tiers give you the method and cap on seats instead. For a first cycle either is enough; the real choice is whether you want the framework enforced or left open.
Employee goal setting software and individual goals
Employee goal setting software is the same machinery pointed at one person rather than the company: goals owned by an individual, visible to their manager, and reviewed on whatever cycle the company already runs. It usually arrives as a module inside a performance platform, because that is where an individual goal actually gets read.
The three HR platforms in this comparison handle individual goals better than the dedicated trackers. An individual goal sits beside the review, the one-on-one, and last year's rating, so a manager preparing a conversation has all of it in one place. A dedicated OKR tool will store the same goal, but it treats it as the bottom of a company cascade rather than as somebody's own commitment.
Involving the person matters as much as recording the goal. According to Gallup (2025), employees are 3.6 times more likely to be engaged when they are involved in setting their goals, which favors goals the employee drafts over goals handed down.
Development goals break the cascade entirely. Learning a skill or moving toward a different role belongs in a development plan and a review rather than in a quarterly objective tree where it competes with revenue targets, and at small scale a goal setting worksheet holds it for nothing.
One warning about attaching individual goals to pay. The moment a goal decides a raise, people write goals they are confident of hitting, and the system starts reporting comfortable numbers. Keep the ambitious quarterly objectives apart from the individual commitments a review is built on, whichever product ends up holding them.
Research on goal setting documents the wider risk. A Harvard Business School working paper, Goals Gone Wild (2009), catalogs the side effects of goals pushed too hard, from a narrow focus that neglects everything outside the goal to a rise in unethical behavior and weaker intrinsic motivation.
What happened to this category
Between 2022 and 2026 this market contracted sharply, and the pattern matters because buying software is a bet that the vendor will still be selling it when your renewal comes around.
| What happened | When | What it means now |
|---|---|---|
| Microsoft retired Viva Goals entirely | December 31, 2025 | Product shut down, Teams and other integrations stopped, data no longer accessible after the cutoff |
| Microsoft stopped feature investment ahead of the shutdown | December 5, 2024 | The product was frozen for roughly a year before it closed |
| WorkBoard acquired Quantive | May 28, 2025 | The two largest enterprise OKR players became one; Quantive customers transition to WorkBoard |
| Quantive had earlier absorbed Koan | Announced February 2022 | A well-regarded tracker for small teams no longer exists in any form |
| Viva Goals began life as an independent platform | Acquired 2021 | An acquisition into a large suite was not a guarantee of survival |
The Viva Goals story is the instructive one. One of the largest software companies in the world acquired an independent OKR platform, which is normally read as a stability signal, and four years later switched it off with no successor product inside the suite. Microsoft said it would not replace the product and encouraged customers to explore third-party OKR tools. Its own retirement FAQ for Viva Goals records the sequence.
Do you need a dedicated OKR tool
For a lot of small teams the honest answer is not yet, and no vendor content will tell you that. That is why this question comes before the product list.
| The complaint | What is actually broken | Does software fix it? |
|---|---|---|
| Nobody updates progress | No prompt and no routine | Yes; automated check-ins are the clearest thing software adds |
| Nobody knows how their work connects to the company goal | No alignment structure once there are layers | Yes; alignment views are the second clearest |
| We cannot see what happened last quarter | No structured history | Yes; this is where spreadsheets genuinely fail |
| Our goals are vague and unmeasurable | The goals are badly written | No; software stores a bad key result just as faithfully |
| Managers do not talk about goals | Management habit, not tooling | No; a tool that nobody opens changes nothing |
| We have three goals and five people | Nothing is broken | No; a shared document is genuinely sufficient here |
The bottom three rows are the common ones at small scale, and none of them is a software problem. The useful threshold is not a headcount but a structure: dedicated tooling starts earning its cost when goals exist at more than one level, when several people need to update independently, and when you want to compare cycles. Below that, a document plus a recurring calendar entry does the same job for nothing.
The vague-goals row deserves emphasis. In a review of 35 years of goal-setting research, Locke and Latham (2002) found that specific, difficult goals consistently led to higher performance than urging people to do their best, and no tool supplies that specificity for you.
12 OKR platforms at a glance
The table below covers all four groups, with seat and contract minimums stated explicitly because that is the fact most likely to remove a product from a small team shortlist.
| Platform | Type | Published pricing | Free tier | Minimum applies | Entry rate | Best for |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tability | Lightweight OKR | From $6 per user | Small teams wanting the least friction | |||
| Perdoo | Lightweight OKR | Free to 5, then $9 | Teams wanting OKRs and KPIs together | |||
| Weekdone | Lightweight OKR | Free to 3, then banded | Teams that want a weekly planning rhythm | |||
| Mooncamp | OKR platform | From 7 euros per user | Teams migrating from a retired platform | |||
| Profit.co | OKR platform | Quote only | Teams wanting OKRs plus task and performance | |||
| WorkBoard | Strategy execution | Quote only | Enterprises running strategy at scale | |||
| Betterworks | Strategy execution | $8 per user | Organizations run on cascading goals | |||
| Lattice | Inside HR platform | $8 per seat for goals | Mid-market teams wanting reviews too | |||
| 15Five | Inside HR platform | $11 for the tier with goals | Teams building check-in habits | |||
| Leapsome | Inside HR platform | Quote only | Teams consolidating several people tools | |||
| Asana | Inside work tool | $24.99 on Advanced | Teams already running Asana | |||
| ClickUp | Inside work tool | From $7 per user | Teams already running ClickUp |
OKR software features that actually differ
Every product above ships the same core set: objectives with key results underneath, progress check-ins, alignment views, a dashboard, and integrations. The differences that decide a shortlist sit inside those features rather than between them.
| Feature | What it does | Where products actually differ |
|---|---|---|
| Objectives and key results | Holds the objective and the two to five measurable results under it | Whether a key result can be numeric, a percentage, a currency amount, or tied to completed work |
| Check-ins | Prompts the owner to update progress on a set rhythm | Where the prompt lands: email, a chat message, or nothing at all until someone opens the tool |
| Alignment and cascade views | Shows how a team goal connects upward to a company objective | How many levels the view stays readable at, which only matters once you have layers |
| Dashboards | One screen showing status across every active objective | Whether status is calculated from progress or set by the owner as a confidence call |
| Separate KPI tracking | Holds ongoing health metrics outside the quarterly goal structure | Most tools merge the two; a few keep them deliberately apart |
| Integrations | Pulls progress from other systems and pushes reminders into chat | Whether a key result can update itself from a connected source or is always typed in by hand |
| AI drafting | Suggests objectives and key results from a short prompt | Now close to universal, and close to indistinguishable between vendors |
Two of those rows carry most of the weight. The first is automatic progress, where a key result reads from a connected source or a linked piece of work. It is the only feature that removes the manual update entirely, and it is why goal tracking inside a tool your team already lives in can beat a dedicated tracker outright.
The second is where the update happens. Nobody opens an OKR app on purpose; they answer a nudge. So check during a trial whether a check-in can be finished from a phone or straight out of a chat message, because a weekly update that requires opening a desktop tool is a weekly update that stops happening by week five.
What an OKR dashboard actually shows
An OKR dashboard is one screen carrying every active objective, its progress, its owner, and its status. Most add the date of the last check-in, a filter by team or cycle, and a roll-up showing how the company objective is tracking against the team goals feeding it.
The useful test is narrow: can you see what is off track and who owns it without clicking into anything. A view that reports only percentage complete hides the problem, because a key result sitting at 40 percent in week ten reads very differently depending on whether its owner still thinks it will land. Tools that ask for a confidence rating alongside the number surface that.
Watch for the stale-data failure too. Any dashboard is only as current as the last round of check-ins, and one where half the goals were last touched six weeks ago will still render green. The column showing when each goal was last updated tells you more than the chart above it.
How we evaluated these platforms
Feature descriptions in this category converge almost completely: every tool has objectives, key results, check-ins, alignment views, and now AI drafting. We applied four tests instead, identically to all twelve.
Built for small teams
These four are the realistic shortlist for a company running its first or second cycle. All publish rates, and two have free tiers that are genuinely usable rather than decorative.
Tability is designed around a single insight: the failure mode of OKRs is not bad software but abandoned check-ins, so the product optimizes relentlessly for the update taking under a minute. Reminders people can answer on their own schedule, a fast interface, and no configuration project mean a team can be running by the end of an afternoon.
Tability's pricing favors very small teams too. Its own pricing page states there is no seat minimum, so a team of three or four pays for three or four seats, where a competitor with a five-seat floor would bill for five.
The simplicity comes from leaving things out. Unlike Perdoo, Tability does not sell a KPI layer for tracking key performance indicators apart from key results. Advanced reporting and data connectors sit on the $10 Premium tier rather than Basic, and reporting depth trails the platforms built for multi-level organizations. With no free plan, evaluation means a 14-day trial with a commitment at the end.
Perdoo has the strongest free tier in this comparison: five users with full OKR and KPI tracking, strategy maps, meetings, and Slack and Teams integration, which is a complete product rather than a demo.
Perdoo's distinguishing idea is separating KPIs from key results, so ongoing health metrics do not get forced into a quarterly goal structure where they do not belong. The strategy map makes the connection from company direction to team goals visible in a way the lighter tools do not attempt.
The paid tier is where the cost appears. Premium costs $9 a seat per month on annual billing below 25 users, falls to $8.10 from 25 users, and needs at least five licenses. A team of six that outgrows the free plan pays about $54 a month. The interface is more structured than fast, which suits deliberate planning and frustrates teams that want to update and move on.
Weekdone bundles something no other vendor here includes as standard: OKR coaching at every paid tier, at no extra charge. For a company setting objectives for the first time, that is worth more than most feature differences, because the common failure is writing key results that are activities rather than outcomes, and no interface prevents that. The weekly planning layer sits alongside the goals so progress updates happen inside a routine rather than as a separate chore.
Banded pricing means you buy a package of users rather than seats, so a team of four pays the up-to-ten rate. Reporting and analytics are thinner than the modern platforms, and the interface shows its age against newer entrants. It is a solid, guided starting point rather than a system you grow into for years.
Mooncamp offers cascade and alignment depth comparable to the structure-heavy tools with a notably more modern interface, and it built a dedicated migration path for teams displaced by the Viva Goals retirement, which tells you where it went looking for customers. Customizable workflows mean it adapts to a company that does not run textbook quarterly OKRs, and the trial requires no card.
Mooncamp pitches its 7 euro Essential plan at smaller teams getting started with OKRs, but there is no free tier, both paid plans carry a five-user minimum, and the goal tree view needs the 10 euro Professional plan. Rates are published in euros, so a US buyer carries the exchange-rate risk. The trial account arrives filled with sample data that you erase before going live, a small thing that nonetheless slows the first evaluation session.
Broader OKR platforms
These three carry more of the strategy execution model. One publishes a seat rate; two do not, and both of those route every deal through a sales conversation built for organizations larger than this page is written for.
Profit.co is the broadest product among the dedicated OKR platforms, extending past goal tracking into tasks, performance, and engagement, with OKR templates and more than 300 built-in KPIs that meaningfully lower the barrier for a first cycle. For a company that would otherwise buy an OKR tool and a performance tool, the consolidation is a genuine saving.
Breadth brings configuration effort, and setup takes longer than with the lighter tools. Pricing now follows an enterprise sale: the pricing page carries no rates and sends every buyer to sales, which assembles a package of modules and negotiates terms.
Older comparisons that list a Profit.co free tier and a per-user rate describe a price list the vendor no longer publishes, so budget only from a written quote.
WorkBoard is now the largest player in enterprise OKRs, having acquired Quantive in May 2025 and combined the two biggest vendors in strategy execution into one company. That scale brings genuine depth for organizations whose problem is aligning thousands of people against a strategy that changes mid-year, and its integrations reach into the suites large enterprises already run.
None of that is relevant below a few hundred employees. Nothing is published, every deal is quoted, and the product assumes a strategy function on the buying side. The acquisition also means Quantive customers are moving to the WorkBoard platform, which is worth knowing if you are evaluating on the strength of older reviews written about a product that is being consolidated away.
Betterworks treats goals as the primary product and builds performance conversations around them rather than the reverse, which suits an organization that genuinely runs on objectives rather than one that sets them and forgets them. Cascading from company to individual, check-in cadences tied to progress, and calibration inside the same flow make it one of the deeper goal products here.
It is scoped for enterprise complexity, which shows in its configuration effort and in who it is built for: the vendor says it adds the most value for organizations with more than 500 employees.
Every Betterworks plan also carries a one-time implementation cost on top of the seat rate. For a team of fifteen wanting quarterly goals, the OKR machinery is a large amount of structure to maintain.
OKRs inside an HR or performance platform
These three sell goals as one module beside performance reviews. If you already pay for one, goals may be included or cheap. If you do not, 15Five's goals start at its $11 Perform tier, bundled with reviews, while Lattice and Leapsome sell a goals module on its own, still under Lattice's $4,000 annual minimum or Leapsome's one-year term.
Lattice is the most complete people platform that includes OKRs, and for a company that wants goals feeding directly into review cycles rather than living in a separate system, that connection is the argument. Goals, one-to-ones, feedback, and reviews share an interface and a data model, which removes the reconciliation problem of running a goal tracker beside a performance tool.
Lattice's published $4,000 minimum annual agreement buys about 42 seats of goals at $8. Any smaller team pays for seats it does not have, and that describes most of the readers of a page about small-team OKRs.
Lattice's goal capability is also generally regarded as less deep than the dedicated trackers, since it is one module competing for roadmap attention against several others. Goals and OKRs bought alone come with one-on-ones, updates, and feedback but not performance reviews, so that route gives up the review connection that is the main reason to choose Lattice.
Dwight SchruteSales3 people
Darryl PhilbinWarehouse1 person
Kelly KapoorCustomer Service1 person
15Five ties goals to a weekly rhythm by design: short check-ins where people report progress, blockers, and priorities, with objectives sitting alongside so goal updates are part of an existing habit rather than a separate quarterly chore. Manager coaching content is built into the product, which addresses the real reason OKR programs fail more directly than a better dashboard would.
The design assumption is the risk. Without an existing check-in discipline the weekly cadence becomes something people ignore, and the platform becomes an expensive unused system. The $4 tier that appears in many comparison tables covers surveys and does not include goals, so the honest entry point for OKRs here is nearly three times what those tables imply.
Leapsome has the broadest module range among the people platforms here, extending past goals and reviews into learning, compensation, and an HRIS. For an organization genuinely replacing three or four separate subscriptions, the consolidation case is real, and buying modules individually means paying only for the ones you use.
The economics are the least transparent on this page. Leapsome publishes no rates: the price depends on headcount, contract length, and which modules you buy, every contract runs at least a year, and its dedicated customer success team is reserved for annual contracts of $6,000 or more. For a small team, that means a sales conversation before any budget number exists, and a one-year commitment once one does.
Goals inside a tool you may already own
This group deserves checking before anything else, because if your team already runs one of these on a plan that includes goals, the marginal cost of goal tracking is zero.
The structural advantage here is one no standalone OKR tool can match: a key result can be linked to the projects that deliver it, so progress updates itself from work that is already being tracked rather than depending on somebody remembering to type a percentage. For a team already living in Asana, that removes the single biggest cause of stale OKR data.
It is not an OKR product and does not enforce the discipline. There is no opinionated objective and key result structure, alignment views are lighter than the dedicated tools, and check-in prompting is weaker. Goals also start on the Advanced tier, so a team on Starter is looking at an upgrade rather than a free feature.
ClickUp includes goal tracking from its $7 Unlimited plan, one of the cheapest ways for a small team to track objectives with any structure at all. A team already on a paid plan gets it at no extra cost. Targets can be numeric, true or false, or tied to task completion, which covers most of what a key result needs to express, and progress rolls up from the work below.
It is a work management platform with goals attached rather than an OKR system, so there is no methodology guidance, no coaching, and alignment across a multi-level organization is weaker than the dedicated tools. The platform is also famously broad, which means a team adopting it purely for goals inherits a great deal of product it did not ask for and a configuration burden to match.
What it costs at three team sizes
The table models monthly cost at 5, 15, and 40 people. Where a vendor enforces a seat floor or contract minimum, the figure reflects the floor rather than the seat rate, which is what makes the pattern visible.
| Option | Rate basis | 5 people | 15 people | 40 people | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ClickUp Unlimited | $7 per user | $35 | $105 | $280 | The free plan offers Goals only as a trial |
| Perdoo free tier | Free up to 5 users | $0 | Not available | Not available | Full OKR and KPI features at that size |
| Weekdone | Free to 3, then user packages | $90 | $135 | $280 | Includes OKR coaching at every paid tier |
| Tability | From $6 per user, no minimum | $30 | $90 | $240 | No free plan; 14-day trial instead |
| Profit.co | Quote only | Quote | Quote | Quote | Priced through sales; free trial available |
| Perdoo Premium | $9 per user under 25, five-seat minimum | $45 | $135 | $324 | Rate falls to $8.10 per user from 25 users |
| 15Five Perform | $11 per user | $55 | $165 | $440 | The $4 Engage tier does not include goals |
| Lattice Goals & OKRs | $8 per seat, $4,000 annual floor | $333 | $333 | $333 | Annual minimum overrides the seat rate below about 42 seats |
| Leapsome | Quote only, per module | Quote | Quote | Quote | One-year minimum term on every contract |
| Betterworks Performance | $8 per user | $40 | $120 | $320 | Plus a one-time implementation fee |
| WorkBoard | Quote only | Not published | Not published | Not published | Scoped and priced for enterprise strategy teams |
Read down the five-person column and the picture is stark: one genuinely free option, paid options between $30 and $90, and then a jump to $333 for Lattice, whose advertised goals rate is $8 a seat. At five people Lattice is not so much expensive as unavailable at a sensible price, and no ranking sorted on seat rate can show you that.
Read across the rows instead and the free option runs out first, because Perdoo's free plan stops at five users. That is the honest trade for starting at zero.
Will this vendor still exist when you renew
No vendor can guarantee it, but you can check the signals before you sign. This is the selection criterion the category earned and nobody applies: given what happened between 2022 and 2026, a goal history is only worth building if the place holding it will be there in three years.
| Signal | What to look for | Why it matters here |
|---|---|---|
| Independence | Is the vendor standalone or a module inside a larger suite | A suite can retire a module without retiring the suite, as happened with Viva Goals |
| Recent acquisition | Has the product been bought, and is it being merged into another | Acquired products get consolidated; older reviews describe something that is changing |
| Export completeness | Does export include historical check-ins, not just current goals | The history is the asset; current goals you can retype |
| Notice commitment | What notice period does the contract promise before discontinuation | Displaced customers get whatever window the vendor chooses to give |
| Category focus | Is OKR the business or a side product | A vendor whose revenue is goals will not quietly stop caring about goals |
None of this argues for any particular product. It argues for asking two questions in the sales conversation that most buyers never ask: what happens to my data if you discontinue this, and how much notice do I get. In a market that has lost this many products in four years, a vendor that answers those clearly is telling you something useful about itself.
Where goals sit in your stack
Goal tracking is one of four adjacent things small companies buy separately and then struggle to reconcile: work management holds the tasks, goal software holds the objectives, performance software holds the reviews, and an HR system holds the people. Most teams end up with some of these overlapping and none of them complete.
The sensible sequence at small scale is usually the reverse of the shopping order. Employee records and the administrative floor come first because they are non-optional and carry compliance weight.
Goal tracking is genuinely optional below a certain structure, and formal reviews are worth adding once pay decisions need a documented basis. Buying the optional layer first is common and produces a company with beautiful quarterly objectives and no idea where its signed policy acknowledgments are.
How to choose OKR software
Five questions settle this, and the first two remove most of the market before a demo.
A closing note on sequencing. Run one full cycle in whatever you already have before buying anything, and note precisely what broke. If the answer is that nobody updated it, buy the tool that nags best. If the answer is that the goals were vague, buy coaching rather than software, which Weekdone bundles into every paid tier. If nothing broke, you do not need to buy anything yet.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is OKR software?
Software that helps a company set, track, and review objectives and key results. An objective is what you want to achieve; key results are the two to five measurable outcomes that prove it happened. The software stores those, records progress over a cycle, shows how team goals connect to company goals, prompts updates, and reports at the end. It is also sold as OKR tools, OKR tracking software, OKR management software, and goal management software, and the terms are interchangeable.
Do you need OKR software, or will a spreadsheet do?
For a small team in its first cycles, a shared document usually does the job. The problems software solves are specific: nobody updates progress unless prompted, nobody can see alignment once there are layers, and nobody can compare cycles without structured history. If none of those three is your complaint, a spreadsheet is not the constraint.
How much does OKR software cost?
Published rates for dedicated tools cluster between $6 and $11 per user monthly on annual billing, until the floors appear. Lattice publishes a $4,000 minimum annual agreement, far above what a small team would pay at its $8 goals rate. Perdoo and Mooncamp require at least five paid seats, while Tability starts at $6 with no minimum. Free plans exist at Perdoo and Weekdone, and Profit.co, Leapsome, and WorkBoard quote every deal.
What is the best OKR software for a small team?
For five people or fewer, the free tiers are genuinely usable: Perdoo covers five users with full OKR and KPI tracking, Weekdone covers three. Past that, Tability starts at $6 per user with no seat minimum, making it the cheapest way for a team of eight to run real OKRs. Weekdone bundles OKR coaching into every paid tier, which is unusual and valuable for a first cycle. Check what you already pay for first.
Is there free OKR software?
Yes, and the free plans are not crippled at small scale. Perdoo publishes a free plan for up to five users covering OKRs, KPIs, strategy maps, and meetings. Weekdone offers three users with all features. Both break when the team outgrows the user cap rather than when the features run out. ClickUp offers Goals only as a trial on its free plan, and Tability runs a 14-day trial instead of a free plan.
What happened to Microsoft Viva Goals?
Microsoft retired it on December 31, 2025. The product began as Ally.io, an independent OKR platform acquired in 2021 and folded into the Viva suite. Microsoft stopped investing in new features from December 5, 2024, and shut it down at the end of 2025, when access ended and integrations with Teams and other tools stopped. Microsoft offered no replacement and pointed customers to third-party OKR tools. Some vendors, including Mooncamp, built dedicated migration paths.
What is the difference between OKR software and performance management software?
OKR software tracks goals; performance management software evaluates people. A dedicated OKR tool handles objectives, key results, check-ins, and alignment and stops there.
A performance platform adds review cycles, ratings, 360 feedback, and often compensation, with goals as one module. They overlap because most performance platforms include goal tracking. The question is which problem is primary: documented reviews for pay decisions, or quarterly goal alignment.
Can you run OKRs in a project management tool you already use?
Often yes, and if your plan already includes goals, it is the cheapest option available. Several work management platforms include goal features connecting objectives to the projects underneath, so progress can roll up from work already tracked, an advantage a standalone tracker structurally cannot match. The trade is depth: weaker alignment views, lighter check-in prompting, and less cross-cycle reporting. For a small team running its first or second cycle, that gap rarely matters.
Make HR the easy part of running your business
Onboarding, e-signatures, training and core HR in one place. Up and running in 5 minutes.
- 7-day free trial
- No credit card required
- Cancel anytime