Performance Review Software: 11 Platforms Compared
Performance review software compared: 11 platforms, the contract floors that hit small teams hardest, cost at 10, 25, and 50 people, and who needs one.
Comparisons in this category almost all rank on features, the least differentiating thing about these products. Every serious platform runs review cycles, collects 360 feedback, tracks goals, and now drafts summaries with AI, so eight vendor pages in, you will struggle to say what separates them. This comparison leads with what does: how each platform charges, which decides what a small team can actually buy.
The fact most listicles leave out entirely is the floor. Some of the best-known platforms set one that applies no matter how few seats you buy. Lattice lists its performance product at $10 per seat, yet a twelve-person company pays more than $27 per employee a month, because the published minimum is $4,000 a year and your headcount is irrelevant to it.
This page covers 11 platforms across three groups: dedicated review tools that publish a rate, dedicated tools that quote, and reviews bundled inside an HR or payroll platform you may already own. It flags every published minimum, models monthly cost at 10, 25, and 50 employees, covers what AI has genuinely changed, and ends with the constraint that decides whether any of this works.
What performance review software is
Performance review software runs the machinery of employee evaluation: building a cycle, sending self and manager assessments, collecting peer or 360 input, storing ratings and written comments against each person, and reporting on the results.
The category exists because a review cycle is a coordination problem before it is anything else. Twenty reviews means forty assessments, a calibration conversation (managers lining up their ratings so they mean the same thing across teams), and a deadline that half the managers will miss. Chasing all of that is the work the software removes.
Review, appraisal, evaluation, or performance management
These terms cause more confusion than they should, and the short answer is that three of the four are synonyms.
| Term | What it means | Is it a different product? |
|---|---|---|
| Performance review software | Running evaluation cycles and storing the results | No; this is the category |
| Performance appraisal software | The same thing, in older and more formal language | No; same vendors, same products |
| Performance evaluation software | The same thing again, used interchangeably | No |
| Employee review software or systems | The same thing, phrased around the employee | No; note this is employer-side, not employee-facing |
| Performance management software | Reviews plus goals, development, and sometimes compensation | Yes, broader; expect a higher price |
| Performance feedback software | Continuous feedback and engagement rather than formal cycles | Yes, adjacent; a different buying decision |
The practical consequence is that searching any of the first four terms surfaces the same shortlist, so the term you use does not narrow the market. The distinction worth making is the fifth row: if your requirement is a documented annual or twice-yearly cycle that supports pay decisions, you need review software. If your requirement is goals, development, and continuous conversation, you are shopping the wider and more expensive performance management category.
Annual minimums and modular add-ons
Annual minimums and modular add-ons are the two pricing mechanics that make the advertised rate close to meaningless for a small team, and most comparisons skip both. They change the shortlist more than any feature does. Two further traps, tier gating and annual-only billing, sit beside them in the table.
| Mechanic | How it works | What it does to a small team |
|---|---|---|
| Annual contract minimum | A floor contract value applies regardless of seat count | Below the break-even headcount you pay the floor, so the effective per-employee rate multiplies |
| Modular pricing | Reviews, engagement, goals, and learning are priced separately | A working configuration costs several times the advertised entry module |
| Tier gating | The cheap tier excludes the capability you are buying the product for | You budget from the entry rate and buy at two or three times that |
| Annual billing only | Monthly billing unavailable or penalized | A full year is committed before you know whether managers will use it |
The tier-gating row has a clean worked example. 15Five publishes an Engage tier at $4 per user per month, which is the figure that ends up in comparison tables, but Engage covers pulse surveys and does not include performance reviews. The lowest tier that actually runs a review cycle is Perform at $11. A buyer comparing $4 against a competitor at $10 is comparing two different products.
11 performance review platforms at a glance
The table below covers all three groups, with annual minimums stated explicitly because that is the fact most likely to remove a product from your list.
| Platform | Type | Published pricing | Annual minimum | Entry rate | Minimum contract | Best for |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PerformYard | Dedicated reviews | $5 to $15 per person | None published | Custom cycles and hands-on support | ||
| 15Five | Dedicated, tiered | $11 for the review tier | None published | Teams with a weekly check-in habit | ||
| Lattice | Dedicated, modular | $10 per seat | $4,000 a year | Mid-market teams wanting one platform | ||
| Betterworks | Goals-first | $8 per user | None published | Organizations run on cascading objectives and key results (OKRs) | ||
| Leapsome | Dedicated, modular | Quote only | One-year term | Teams consolidating reviews and learning | ||
| Culture Amp | Dedicated, sales-led | Quote only | None published | Organizations led by survey science | ||
| Trakstar | Dedicated | Quote only | None published | Teams wanting reviews inside a talent suite | ||
| BambooHR | Inside an HR suite | $17 per employee | Flat rate from $250 a month | Teams that need HR records too | ||
| Rippling | Inside an HR suite | $8 base, module quoted | None published | Companies already running Rippling | ||
| Gusto | Inside payroll | $80 plus $12 per person | None published | Payroll-first teams wanting light reviews | ||
| Deel Engage | Inside a global suite | $19 per employee | None published | Distributed teams already on Deel |
How we evaluated these platforms
Feature grids here are close to interchangeable because the products really do converge: reviews, goals, feedback, one-to-ones, and AI drafting appear on nearly every page. We applied four tests instead, identically to all eleven.
Dedicated review tools that publish a rate
These four are dedicated performance tools that will tell you something about price without a sales call, because each publishes a per-person rate or range. Lattice also publishes the minimum that decides whether its rate applies to you, and Betterworks bills a one-time implementation fee on top of its per-user rate.
PerformYard does one thing and does it unusually well: it configures around whatever review process you already have rather than imposing a template. You get different cycles for different groups, custom rating scales, 360 and self-assessment, and one Performance plan covering reviews, meetings, goals, feedback, and engagement surveys instead of a module matrix. A dedicated success manager, hands-on implementation, and unlimited employee training come with every plan at no extra fee.
Everything beyond reviews is thinner by comparison: goal tracking is basic, there is no learning management, and compensation, coaching, and competencies sit in a separately priced Talent Development suite. Pricing is quoted per seat within the published range rather than listed as tiers, so you still have a conversation. For an organization that wants a performance platform rather than a review tool, this is deliberately less product.
15Five is built around a weekly rhythm rather than an annual event: short check-ins, continuous feedback, manager coaching content in the top tier, and reviews that draw on a year of accumulated input instead of a blank page in December. For a company trying to change how managers behave rather than just document what they concluded, that design is the argument, and manager enablement is stronger here than in the pure review tools.
The design assumption is also the risk. Without an existing check-in discipline, the weekly cadence becomes a nagging system that people stop completing, and the platform quietly becomes shelfware at $11 or $16 per person. The $4 Engage tier that appears in most comparison tables covers surveys and does not run reviews, so the honest entry point for reviews is nearly three times what many lists imply.
Lattice is the most complete platform in this comparison and the one most often described as the category default. Reviews, goals, one-to-ones, feedback, engagement, and compensation planning sit in one product with a consistent interface, and its AI assistance across review drafting and summarization is among the more developed. For a company consolidating four tools into one, the breadth is the case.
The pricing structure works against small teams in two directions at once. The modular design means the advertised performance rate covers performance only, and every module plus both add-ons comes to $32 per seat. The published $4,000 minimum annual spend then means that below about 34 seats, a company buying Performance alone pays the floor rather than the rate. Neither fact is hidden, but neither appears in most rankings that place Lattice first for everyone.
Betterworks inverts the usual arrangement: goals are the product and reviews are built around them, rather than goals being a module beside the review cycle. Cascading objectives from company to individual, check-in cadences tied to goal progress, and calibration built into that flow suit an organization that genuinely runs on objectives rather than one that sets them in January and reopens them in December.
That framing only pays off if goal discipline already exists. For a company whose actual requirement is a documented annual cycle, the OKR machinery is a large amount of structure to configure and maintain. The seat rate is published but implementation is billed on top, calibration needs the $9 tier, and Betterworks itself says it adds the most value for organizations with over 500 employees.
Dedicated tools that quote rather than publish
These three are credible products whose evaluation starts with a sales conversation, because none publishes a seat rate. Leapsome publishes its contract terms but no price, and Culture Amp and Trakstar publish neither a rate nor a minimum. That is normal at mid-market and a real cost below it.
Leapsome has the broadest module range here, extending past performance into learning, compensation, and an HRIS core. For an organization that wants reviews, development, and engagement from one vendor with serious data protection credentials (ISO 27001 and SOC 2 Type II certification, and a service compliant with GDPR, the European Union's data protection law), it is a strong consolidation play.
The economics start with a quote. Leapsome publishes no seat price at all: cost depends on headcount, contract length, and the modules you pick, and every contract runs at least a year. The one dollar figure on its pricing page is the $6,000 annual contract that unlocks its Customer Success team, so a smaller account gets email support and a help center instead. Its center of gravity is mid-market, run from Berlin and New York.
Culture Amp came from the engagement side and the survey methodology is still what distinguishes it: benchmarks drawn from over a billion survey responses, validated question sets, and analysis depth that the review-first platforms do not attempt. Where an organization wants to connect what people say in a survey with how they are rated in a cycle, that lineage is a real advantage.
It is sales-led throughout, with no published rate or minimum, and its own pricing page files every company under 200 employees into a single small-and-medium tier. The performance module is generally regarded as less mature than the engagement product, which matters if reviews rather than surveys are your actual requirement. For a small company that just wants a review cycle, this is the wrong end of the market.
Trakstar pitches its suite at HR teams of all sizes rather than at one segment, and its review product rests on customizable templates and automated workflows that keep cycles consistent and on time. The vendor cites fast implementation times, and Trakstar now sits inside Mitratech's talent management suite alongside Hire, Learn, and Insights if you want hiring, learning, or workforce analytics later. Its quote page lists implementation support, unlimited storage, and reporting as included rather than extra.
Nothing is published, so even a single review cycle starts with a quote request before you see a number. The interface carries a dated reputation relative to the newer platforms, and AI capability trails the leaders noticeably, which matters less than vendors imply but is a real gap. Feature depth is moderate throughout rather than strong anywhere.
Reviews inside an HR or payroll platform
This group deserves checking before anything else on the page, because if you already pay for one of these the marginal cost of a review cycle may be zero.
BambooHR is an HR system of record where performance is one capability among many, and for a growing company that ordering is often correct. Reviews sit against the same employee record as documents, time off, and org structure, so a completed cycle lands in the file rather than in a separate system that has to be reconciled at some later point.
Performance is gated to the Pro tier, so reviews here effectively cost $17 per employee rather than the $10 headline. Companies of 25 or fewer employees pay a flat monthly rate starting at $250 instead, which makes it expensive for a very small team. Review depth trails the dedicated platforms: calibration is lighter, cycle configuration is less flexible, and the AI assistance is behind the specialists. It is adequate rather than excellent at the review itself.
For a company already on Rippling, performance is a module that switches on against data the platform already holds, with no integration work and no duplicate employee records. That is the entire argument and at scale it is a good one, because the reporting connects review outcomes to compensation and headcount data natively.
For everyone else the case collapses. Performance cannot be bought standalone: every Rippling product sits on its required core platform, so getting reviews means adopting Rippling first. That is a platform decision rather than a review-tool decision. Module pricing is not published, so you cannot compare it against the dedicated tools without a sales process, and review depth trails the specialists.
Gusto is a payroll platform first and its review tooling reflects that: templates, goal tracking, and feedback collection that will run a straightforward annual cycle for a small team without a separate purchase. For a company already paying for Gusto Plus or Premium and running its first structured review, that is genuinely enough, and starting there costs nothing extra.
It is not a performance platform and does not claim to be. A cycle offers a self-evaluation, a review from one assigned reviewer, or both, with no calibration step and no multi-rater 360, so an organization that outgrows a simple annual form will need something else within a year or two. Reviews are also included only on Plus and Premium, and since October 1, 2026 new customers cannot add them to the entry Simple plan.
Deel Engage exists for a specific situation: a company whose people are spread across countries and whose employment relationships already run through one platform. Reviewing employees, contractors, and employer-of-record (EOR) staff in a single cycle without reconciling three systems is a genuine problem, and this is one of few products that solves it.
Outside that situation the case is thin. It cannot be bought standalone, reviews start at the $19 Advanced tier of Deel HR, and the performance capability itself is newer and shallower than the dedicated platforms, which have spent years on cycle configuration and calibration. A US-only small business has no reason to be looking at it.
Enterprise suites, for recognition only
The platforms below carry performance modules inside full human capital management (HCM) suites. They are named so you recognize them in a ranking and can move on, since none is a realistic purchase for a company running its first structured cycles.
| Platform | What it is | Why it is not on the shortlist |
|---|---|---|
| Workday | Enterprise HCM with a full talent suite | Bought as a suite decision at thousands of employees |
| SAP SuccessFactors | Enterprise talent and HR suite | Enterprise licensing and implementation program |
| ADP, Paycor, Paylocity, UKG | Payroll-led HCM with performance modules | Performance is a bundled module inside a heavy suite |
| ClearCompany | Mid-market talent platform with reviews | Quote-based and scoped above small teams |
Dwight SchruteSales3 people
Darryl PhilbinWarehouse1 person
Kelly KapoorCustomer Service1 personWhich of these are performance management platforms
Performance management software is the broader purchase: reviews plus goals, continuous feedback, development, and sometimes compensation planning. Five of the eleven products here qualify. The rest run cycles and stop, which is why the two searches return overlapping shortlists at very different prices.
| Platform | What it carries beyond the review cycle | Which category it belongs to |
|---|---|---|
| Lattice | Goals, one-to-ones, feedback, engagement surveys, compensation planning | Performance management platform |
| Leapsome | 360 feedback, goals, one-to-ones, surveys, learning, compensation, and an HRIS core | Performance management platform |
| 15Five | Weekly check-ins, continuous feedback, manager coaching content | Continuous performance management platform |
| Culture Amp | Benchmarked engagement surveys, goals, development | Performance management platform, engagement-led |
| Betterworks | Cascading objectives, check-ins tied to goal progress, calibration | Performance management platform, goals-led |
| PerformYard | Engagement surveys and basic goal tracking, with development sold as a second suite | Review tool |
| Trakstar | 360 feedback, goal tracking, reporting inside a wider talent suite | Review tool |
| BambooHR, Rippling, Gusto, Deel Engage | Reviews and goals attached to payroll or HR records | HR platform with a review module |
If you searched for performance management tools rather than review software, you are shopping the first five rows, and the price difference is structural rather than marginal. Those are mostly the products sold by module or by tier, so the working configuration costs a multiple of the entry rate, and they include the one published annual minimum on this page.
Continuous performance management is the sub-genre worth naming separately. It replaces the annual event with a weekly or monthly rhythm feeding a lighter cycle, which produces better reviews when managers keep the habit and an abandoned system when they do not. Buy it because the habit already exists, not to create one.
The case for the rhythm itself is well documented. According to Gallup research on feedback, employees are 3.6 times more likely to strongly agree they are motivated to do outstanding work when their manager gives daily rather than annual feedback. The software records that feedback; it does not create it.
Reporting is the other thing the broader platforms sell, and it is worth knowing what it means before paying for it. Performance reporting here covers completion rates by manager, rating distribution across the company, goal progress, and trends across cycles. All of it needs several completed cycles before it says anything, so it is a reason to buy in year two rather than year one.
Industry-specific performance management software
Most vertical positioning in this category is marketing rather than product: the healthcare page and the manufacturing page usually describe the same platform. Two differences are real. Healthcare employers often need license and credential expiry tracked against the same employee record as the review, and multi-site or shift-based teams need something people can complete on a phone rather than at a desk.
Test both claims directly in the demo. Ask where a credential expiry date lives and what happens when it lapses, and ask to see a manager complete an assessment on a phone. If the answers are a spreadsheet upload and a pinch-to-zoom web page, the vertical badge is a landing page, and a general platform plus a real employee record will serve you better.
What it costs at three team sizes
The table models monthly cost at 10, 25, and 50 employees. Wherever a vendor sets a floor, whether an annual minimum or a flat small-company rate, the row shows that floor instead of the seat rate, and that is what makes the pattern visible.
| Option | Rate basis | 10 employees | 25 employees | 50 employees | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PerformYard | $5 to $15 per person | $50 to $150 | $125 to $375 | $250 to $750 | Performance plan covers reviews, goals, and surveys |
| Betterworks Performance | $8 per user | $80 | $200 | $400 | Implementation billed once on top; calibration needs the $9 tier |
| 15Five Perform | $11 per employee | $110 | $275 | $550 | Engage at $4 does not include reviews |
| Gusto Plus | $80 base plus $12 per person | $200 | $380 | $680 | Reviews included; payroll is the actual product |
| BambooHR Pro | $17 per employee, flat rate at 25 or fewer | From $250 | From $250 | $850 | Flat monthly rate starts at $250; the Pro flat rate is quoted |
| Lattice Performance | $10 per seat | $333 | $333 | $500 | Minimum annual spend of $4,000 overrides low seat counts |
| Lattice full stack | $32 per seat, every module and add-on | $333 | $800 | $1,600 | Performance, Goals, Engagement, Compensation, and Grow combined |
| Leapsome, Culture Amp | Quote only | Not published | Not published | Not published | Both bill annually; Leapsome contracts run at least a year |
| Deel HR Advanced | $19 per employee | $190 | $475 | $950 | Engage bundle with reviews, goals, and surveys on the Deel HRIS |
| Trakstar | Quote only | Not published | Not published | Not published | Expect a sales cycle before a number |
The shape of that table is the argument of this page. Compare the 10-employee and 25-employee columns: Lattice Performance and BambooHR Pro show the same figure at both sizes, because the floor is doing the work rather than the rate. Read across the PerformYard row and the cost scales with the team, which is what per-employee pricing is supposed to do. A company of ten choosing between a $50 monthly commitment and a $333 one is not comparing feature sets, and no ranking that omits minimums can tell it that.
What a small team actually needs
A small team needs less from a review process than most content in this category assumes, because most of it is written for organizations with an HR function and several layers of management. Naming the narrower requirement keeps you from buying against somebody else's problem.
| Requirement | Why it matters at small scale | What it needs |
|---|---|---|
| The same questions for everyone | Inconsistent questions make ratings incomparable and unfair | A template, not a platform |
| A written record of what was said | Pay, promotion, and dismissal decisions rest on it later | Somewhere durable the file will still be in three years |
| Completion actually happening | Cycles die when nobody chases the last four managers | Reminders; a shared deadline works below about 20 people |
| Comparability across managers | Two managers rating differently makes pay decisions arbitrary | Calibration, which is where software starts earning its cost |
| History across cycles | A pattern over three years says more than one rating | Structured storage rather than a folder of documents |
| Employee access to their own record | Several states, California among them, give employees a legal right to inspect their personnel file | A self-service view of their own file |
The first three rows need a template and discipline rather than a subscription. The last three are where dedicated software pays for itself, and they arrive at roughly the point where several managers run cycles independently. That threshold is more useful than a headcount, because a 40-person company with two managers may not need it while a 20-person company with five might.
What AI changed, and what it did not
Every platform on this page now advertises AI, and the honest summary is that it has changed the writing rather than the judging.
| Where AI is used | What it does | How much it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Draft generation | Turns feedback, goals, and notes into a first-draft review | Genuinely saves manager time on the blank page problem |
| Summarization | Condenses a year of check-ins and feedback into a narrative | Useful where continuous input exists to summarize |
| Language flagging | Highlights vague, generic, or potentially biased phrasing | Helpful guardrail; does not detect biased judgment |
| Rating suggestions | Proposes a rating from accumulated data | Treat with caution; the judgment should stay human |
| Analytics | Surfaces patterns across teams and cycles | Needs several cycles of data before it says anything |
Two cautions worth holding. AI drafting quality is a direct function of input quality, so a platform generating a review from three check-ins and two goals produces something fluent and empty, which is arguably worse than a short honest paragraph. And every AI capability here appears on nearly every platform now, so it is a poor basis for choosing between them.
The constraint no platform fixes
The constraint is manager engagement, and it is falling. That finding comes from workforce data rather than any feature grid, but it belongs in a software comparison because it predicts whether any of these purchases will work.
The practical implication for a buying decision is to weight manager burden heavily. A platform that assumes weekly check-ins, quarterly goal reviews, and calibration sessions is asking for a material amount of time from people who, on this evidence, have less of it and less appetite than they did three years ago. Choosing the lighter system that managers complete beats choosing the deeper one they abandon, and that calculation is specific to your managers rather than to a feature grid.
Where the record lives afterwards
One question gets asked late in this process and should be asked early: once a cycle is complete, where does the completed review live, and who can produce it in three years?
This matters more than it sounds. A performance record is the evidentiary basis for a promotion, a pay decision, a performance improvement plan, or a dismissal, and the party that later needs it is usually not the manager who wrote it.
A dedicated platform holds that record inside a subscription you may not still have; a system of record holds it alongside the employment file it belongs to. Companies that run reviews in one system and keep employee files in another routinely discover the gap at the worst moment, when somebody asks for the documented history behind a decision.
Federal law sets a retention floor for employers with 15 or more employees: under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recordkeeping rule at 29 CFR 1602.14, which binds employers covered by Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act, personnel records tied to promotion, pay, and termination must be kept one year from the record or the action, whichever is later. In California, Labor Code section 1198.5 requires employers to produce an employee's personnel records within 30 calendar days of a written request.
How to choose performance review software
Five questions settle this, and the first two can rule platforms out before you book a demo.
Before you buy anything, run one real cycle on a template and count what actually broke: inconsistent questions, missed deadlines, incomparable ratings, or nowhere to keep the result. The specific failure tells you which product category to shop, and for a small team the answer is sometimes that nothing broke badly enough to justify a subscription.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is performance review software?
Software that runs employee evaluation cycles: building the cycle, sending self and manager assessments, collecting peer or 360 feedback, storing ratings and comments against each employee, and reporting on results. Most platforms add goal tracking, one-to-one agendas, and continuous feedback between cycles. The category is sold interchangeably as performance appraisal software, performance evaluation software, and employee review software, and the same vendors appear under every label.
What is the difference between performance review, appraisal, and evaluation software?
Practically nothing. Review, appraisal, and evaluation are three words for the same process, and the same products sell under all three. Appraisal is the older and more formal word, more common outside the United States. The term that genuinely differs is performance management software, which is broader: it covers goals, continuous feedback, development, and sometimes compensation alongside the review. If a vendor calls itself a performance management platform, expect more than reviews and a price to match.
How much does performance review software cost?
Published review-capable rates run from $8 per user at Betterworks and $10 per seat at Lattice to $11 at 15Five and $17 at BambooHR, with PerformYard quoting within $5 to $15. What often decides affordability is a floor rather than the seat rate: Lattice publishes a $4,000 minimum annual spend, and BambooHR bills companies of 25 or fewer a flat rate from $250 a month. At 12 employees a $4,000 minimum exceeds $27 per employee monthly.
What is the best performance review software for a small business?
The deciding factor is usually whether a vendor enforces a contract floor, because that removes well-known platforms regardless of features. PerformYard publishes $5 to $15 per person with no published minimum and includes a dedicated success manager, making it one of the more accessible purpose-built options for a small team. Trakstar is pitched at HR teams of all sizes and quotes rather than publishes. Check whether your existing HR platform already includes reviews first.
Do you need dedicated performance review software?
Below roughly 25 people, often not. A cycle needs consistent questions, a record of what was said, and somewhere durable that record lives, and a small team meets all three with a template and a system of record. Dedicated software buys scale and structure: many cycles at once, calibration across managers, automatic chasing, and multi-year trends. Those matter once several managers run reviews independently and consistency stops happening by itself.
Is there free performance review software?
Not meaningfully at the dedicated end. Purpose-built platforms sell on annual contracts and free tiers are rare, because the buyers are companies with an HR function. What exists instead is capability bundled into a plan you already pay for, since several HR and payroll platforms include basic reviews in mid or upper tiers at no separate charge. Free templates will run a first cycle adequately, and for a very small team that is often the honest answer.
Has AI changed performance reviews?
It has changed the drafting more than the deciding. Most platforms now generate first-draft summaries from feedback and goal data, flag vague or potentially biased language, and condense a year of notes into a narrative. What has not changed is the judgment underneath: a rating still reflects what a manager believes, and a draft built from thin input produces something fluent and empty. Treat AI as a drafting aid rather than a basis for choosing between platforms.
Should reviews be annual or continuous?
Most organizations run a formal cycle once or twice a year and pair it with lighter check-ins between, which is reasonable rather than a compromise. The formal cycle exists because pay and promotion need a documented, comparable basis; continuous feedback exists because waiting twelve months to tell someone something is poor management. The constraint is manager capacity, not software: a continuous model only works if managers hold the conversations.
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