OKR Software: 12 Tools Compared for Small Teams

Something happened to this category that almost no comparison mentions, and it should change how you evaluate it. 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 merged. Two other well-regarded tools were absorbed into products that no longer exist under their own names. This is a consolidating market, and for a small team choosing a system it hopes to still be running in three years, that 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 reads as affordable for a team of eight. Then the floors appear: a ten-licence minimum here, a $4,000 annual contract minimum there, and a $6,000 one somewhere else, none of which cares how many people you actually have. The seat rate is not the price for a small team, and comparisons that rank on seat rate 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 reported 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, and it is worth being clear that the tool does not make the practice work.

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 round.

The Viva Goals story is the instructive one. An independent OKR platform was acquired by one of the largest software companies in the world, which is normally read as a stability signal, and four years later it was switched off with no successor product inside the suite. Microsoft directed customers to pick a third-party tool independently. Its own documentation on Viva Goals records the sequence.

Do you need a dedicated OKR tool

This question goes before the product list because for a lot of small teams the honest answer is not yet, and no vendor content will tell you that.

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.

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.

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 optimises relentlessly for the update taking under a minute. Async-friendly nudges, a fast interface, and no configuration project mean a team can be running by the end of an afternoon. The absence of any seat minimum is a real advantage for a team of six or seven, which several competitors will not serve at all.

The simplicity is genuinely subtractive. There is no KPI layer separate from key results, alignment visibility is lighter than the strategy-first tools, and reporting depth trails the platforms built for multi-level organisations. The withdrawal of the free plan also removes what used to be the easiest way to try it, so evaluation now means a 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, check-ins, and integrations, which is a complete product rather than a demo. Its 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 ten-licence minimum on paid plans is the catch and it lands precisely on the teams this page is written for: a company of seven that outgrows the free tier pays for ten seats, so the effective rate jumps rather than scales. Reported per-user figures also vary noticeably between sources, and 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 the cost does not fall below the band floor, so a team of four pays the up-to-ten rate. Independent ratings sit below the stronger tools in this group, 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. Customisable workflows mean it adapts to a company that does not run textbook quarterly OKRs, and the trial requires no card.

It is priced and positioned for mid-market rather than very small teams, with no free tier and per-user pricing that adds up past thirty people. Rates are published in euros, so a US buyer is exposed to conversion. Reviewers note the first-login experience arrives cluttered with sample data, which is a small thing that nonetheless slows the first evaluation session.

Broader OKR platforms

These three carry more of the strategy execution model. One publishes something; two do not, and both of those are priced for organisations several times larger than this page is written for.

Profit.co is the broadest product at the accessible end of this category, extending past goal tracking into tasks, performance, and engagement, with a large library of pre-built objectives that meaningfully lowers 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 reviewers consistently describe the initial setup as taking longer than the lighter tools. The reported annual spend minimum on upper tiers is the item to verify before investing evaluation time, because it is the kind of floor that appears late in a sales process. As with several vendors here, published figures and third-party reports do not fully agree.

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 organisations 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 migrating platforms, 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 organisation 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, and that shows in configuration effort and in a satisfaction profile below the mid-market leaders. Pricing is quote-led despite third-party sources circulating a figure, so budgeting requires a conversation. 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, buying one for OKRs means adopting a performance system too.

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.

The reported $4,000 annual minimum makes it unavailable on sensible terms below roughly thirty employees, which is most of the audience for a page about small-team OKRs. The 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. Buying Lattice for OKRs alone is buying a performance platform.

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 programmes 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 and HR administration, with strong satisfaction scores. For an organisation genuinely replacing three or four separate subscriptions, the consolidation case is real and the per-module rate looks attractive on its own.

The modular economics are the most aggressive on this page. Individual modules are inexpensive, the combination most buyers want is several times the entry figure, and the reported $6,000 annual minimum is the highest floor here. Its centre of gravity is European mid-market well above fifty employees, and reviewers report data export limitations, which matters more than usual given how this category has consolidated.

Goals inside a tool you may already own

This group deserves checking before anything else, because if your team already runs one of these the marginal cost of goal tracking is zero or close to it.

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. The goal capability also sits on higher tiers, so a team on the entry plan is looking at an upgrade rather than a free feature.

ClickUp includes goal tracking in its free tier, which makes it the cheapest way for a small team to start tracking objectives with any structure at all. Targets can be numeric, monetary, binary, 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 organisation 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.

Read down the five-person column and the picture is stark: three genuinely free options, one at $30, one at $80 because of a licence floor, and then a jump to $333 and $500 for products whose advertised rates are $11 and $3. Those last two are not expensive at five people, they are unavailable at a sensible price, and no ranking sorted on seat rate can show you that. Read across and the free options run out first, which is the honest trade for starting at zero.

Will this vendor still exist when you renew

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.

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 acknowledgements 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 one vendor here bundles free. Independent guidance on the method itself is available from What Matters.

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 team below roughly 15 people running 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. Perdoo is reported to require ten paid licences, putting the paid entry near $80 a month regardless of team size. Lattice is reported at a $4,000 annual minimum and Leapsome around $6,000, in each case regardless of seat count. Tability starts near $6 with no reported seat minimum, and free tiers exist at Perdoo, Weekdone, and inside ClickUp.

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 around $6 per user with no reported 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 tiers are not crippled at small scale. Perdoo publishes a free plan for up to five users covering OKRs, KPIs, strategy maps, and check-ins. Weekdone offers three users with all features. ClickUp includes goal tracking in its free tier. All three break when the team outgrows the seat cap rather than when the features run out. Note that Tability, previously free, now runs a 14-day trial instead.

What happened to Microsoft Viva Goals?

Microsoft retired it on 31 December 2025. The product began as an independent OKR platform acquired in 2021 and folded into the Viva suite. Microsoft stopped investing in new features from 5 December 2024 and shut it down at the end of 2025, deactivating both the web and Teams apps and stopping integrations. No replacement was offered inside the Viva suite and customers were directed to choose third-party tools independently. Several vendors 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 it is the cheapest option available. Several work management platforms include goal features connecting objectives to the projects underneath, which is an advantage a standalone tracker structurally cannot match, since progress can roll up from work already tracked. 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.