Talent Management
15Five
Rest of world Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by 15Five, Inc. · www.15five.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Link to this page
Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds.
The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where
that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.
15Five at a glance
- Vendor
- 15Five, Inc.
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates 15Five 2.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. 15Five, Inc. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 1 Oct 2026 to 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
15Five, Inc. of San Francisco offers a talent management suite scoring highest in performance reviews, where scores cluster at 7-8: self, manager, peer and upward reviews, real-time calibration with a track-changes feed showing original versus calibrated scores, and rating-distribution reporting across managers. Goals and feedback and integrations and portability follow at 6-7, resting on weekly check-ins that automatically track goals and OKRs, sixteen named HRIS integrations behind an automatic-sync connector, and Okta and OneLogin provisioning. Warnings concentrate in sovereignty at 0-1, where no captured page states hosting location, data residency or subprocessors — including the AI providers behind AMAYA and KONA — and in pricing transparency at 1-2, where pages map modules Perform, Engage and Compensation but show no price figures. Codetermination and privacy sits at 4 with no spread: AI features are named with inputs listed and a stated human in the loop, but judges found no public information on minimum group sizes, configurable retention or access logging. Learning and development spans 5-7 — judges credit the nine-box matrix and Growth Studio but differ over the skills mapping.
Speaks for it
- Real-time calibration with a track-changes feed showing original versus calibrated scores and reporting on the distribution of ratings across managers
- Self, manager, peer and upward reviews on quarterly or semi-annual cycles, with competency assessment and a private manager assessment
- Weekly check-ins that automatically track progress toward goals and OKRs, 1:1 agendas both sides can add to, and High Fives recognition
- Sixteen named HRIS integrations behind an automatic-sync connector, plus Okta and OneLogin provisioning and Slack and MS Teams
- Individually named AI features — AMAYA, KONA, AI-Assisted Reviews, Focus Briefs, Meeting Assistant — with inputs listed, permission-scoped agents and a stated human in the loop
Held against it
- Sovereignty scores of 0-1, with no public information on hosting location, data residency or the subprocessors — including the AI providers — for a San Francisco vendor
- Pricing transparency scores of 1-2, with no public price figures, pricing basis, minimum term or VAT treatment in the captures
- Codetermination and privacy scored 4, with no public information on a minimum group size for anonymous survey or upward-feedback results, configurable retention, access logging or a per-module switch to disable AI features
- No public information on a documented rule for what the employee, the manager and HR can each see, or on per-cycle deadlines and reminders
- None of the sixteen named HRIS integrations is a DACH-common system such as Personio, SAP SuccessFactors or HRworks
Best for
- You run quarterly or semi-annual review cycles and want calibration with a visible original-versus-calibrated record for every score change
- Your team lives in Slack or MS Teams and your HRIS is among the sixteen named systems, such as Workday, UKG, ADP or BambooHR
- You want a continuous between-cycles rhythm — weekly check-ins, shared 1:1 agendas, High Fives — feeding AI-assisted year-end reviews
Avoid if
- You need a works agreement in place before rollout — the bench found no documentation aimed at a works council and no public information on minimum group sizes, retention settings or per-module AI switches
- Your procurement requires evidence of data residency or of the subprocessor chain, including AI providers, before employee data goes to a San Francisco vendor
- You must compute the annual cost from published prices before talking to sales
- Your HRIS is Personio, SAP SuccessFactors or HRworks and a named connector is required
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Performance reviews & calibration | 3.5 of 5 |
| Goals, OKRs & continuous feedback | 3.5 of 5 |
| Learning, skills & succession | 3 of 5 |
| Works council, visibility & AI disclosure | 2 of 5 |
| HRIS sync, integrations & data portability | 3.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 0 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 0.5 of 5 |
Performance reviews & calibration
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The review cycle itself: configurable templates and rating scales, self, manager and 360° input, calibration across teams, and whether each rating can be traced back to criteria fixed before the cycle began.
0 — No structured reviews; at most a free-text form with no cycle, no scale and no record of who wrote what.
3 — Fixed review templates with self and manager input, but no configurable criteria, no calibration and no statement of what the employee sees.
5 — Configurable cycles, questions and rating scales, self, manager and peer input, employee sign-off or acknowledgement, and the review history kept per employee.
8 — 360° feedback with configurable reviewer selection, calibration views across teams with rating distributions, review criteria per role or level, reminders and deadlines per cycle, and a documented rule for what the employee, the manager and HR can each see.
10 — Reviews are an auditable process: criteria and competency models versioned and fixed before the cycle, every rating change during calibration attributed and reasoned, bias checks or distribution analysis described, and the full review history exportable per employee.
The Head of HR
Self, manager, peer and upward reviews run quarterly or semi-annually, and calibration is real machinery: calibrators adjust scores together in real time, the distribution of ratings across managers is reportable, and the review summary shows original versus calibrated scores with a track-changes feed — the defensibility I have to stand behind in every dispute. Competency assessment and a private manager assessment give criteria beyond free text, though we found no public information on per-cycle reminders and deadlines, on a documented rule for what the employee, manager and HR can each see, or on criteria being versioned and fixed before the cycle starts. 2 3 5 6
The Managing Director
Self, manager, peer and upward reviews on a quarterly or semi-annual rhythm, a live calibration room with rating-distribution reporting across managers, and a track-changes feed showing original versus calibrated scores — that is a governed review process, not a form. The employee side is thinner: we found no public statement of what the employee, the manager and HR can each see, and no public information on competency models being fixed and versioned before the cycle begins. 3 5 6 2
The People Analyst
Self, manager, peer and upward reviews on a quarterly or semi-annual cadence, real-time calibration showing original versus calibrated scores with a track-changes activity feed and past calibration changes per employee, plus reporting on rating distributions across managers — that is a real calibration capability. We found no public information on review criteria fixed per role or level before the cycle begins, on reminders and deadlines per cycle, or on a documented rule for what the employee, the manager and HR can each see, which keeps it short of an auditable process. 5 6 2 3
The Works Council Member
Self, manager, peer and upward reviews run on quarterly or semi-annual cycles, and calibration is genuinely built in: real-time score adjustment, rating distributions across managers, and a track-changes feed showing original versus calibrated scores. What I cannot find is a documented rule for what the employee, the manager and HR each see, per-role criteria fixed before the cycle begins, or any bias analysis — and export of evaluations and notes appears only as a statement in the privacy policy. 2 5 6
The HR IT Integrator
Self, manager, peer and upward reviews on quarterly or semi-annual cycles, real-time calibration with a track-changes feed showing original versus calibrated scores, rating-distribution reporting across managers, and competency assessment with skills mapping are all published. What I could not find is the documented rule for who sees what, reminders and deadlines per cycle, or criteria versioned and fixed before the cycle — so this sits below the near-auditable tier. 2 5 6 2
The Skeptic
The calibrations page is the strongest thing here: calibrators adjust scores in real time, an activity feed shows original versus calibrated scores, and reporting gives the distribution of ratings across managers, with competency assessment on quarterly or semi-annual self, manager, peer and upward reviews. But we found no public information on configurable rating scales, employee sign-off, per-cycle deadlines and reminders, or a documented rule for what the employee, manager and HR can each see — the difference between a calibration view and an auditable process. 2 5 6
Goals, OKRs & continuous feedback
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The work between review cycles: individual and team goals or OKRs with alignment, progress check-ins, 1:1 meetings with shared agendas, and feedback and recognition — judged on whether the year-end review can draw on it rather than starting from memory.
0 — No goals or feedback features; objectives live in documents outside the product.
3 — Individual goals with a progress percentage, and praise or feedback as an unstructured feed, with no link to the review cycle.
5 — Goals or OKRs at company, team and individual level with alignment, regular check-ins, 1:1 agendas shared between manager and employee, and requested feedback that can be pulled into the next review.
8 — OKR or goal cascading with dependencies and confidence tracking, goal changes logged with history, 1:1 notes with private and shared parts stated, feedback requests to named colleagues, and integrations into Microsoft Teams or Slack for check-ins.
10 — Continuous performance management that feeds the record: goal history, check-ins, 1:1 outcomes and feedback visible in the review with their dates, configurable whether goal attainment affects ratings, and reporting on goal progress across the organisation.
The Head of HR
Weighted OKRs tracked automatically in weekly check-ins that take employees fifteen minutes, 1:1 agendas both manager and report add to during the week, notes with action items, requested feedback and High Fives recognition, with Slack and Teams carrying notifications — the year-end review draws on a live record instead of memory. We found no public information on goal cascading with dependencies and confidence tracking, on logged goal-change history, or on which parts of 1:1 notes stay private versus shared, so it stops short of the stronger tier. 2 7 8 12
The Managing Director
Weighted OKRs with progress tracked automatically through weekly check-ins that take fifteen minutes to write and five to review, plus 1-on-1s where both sides add agenda items all week with notes and action items — this is precisely the between-cycles rhythm a company like mine needs, with Slack and Teams wired in for recognition and notifications. We found no public information on goal-change history, confidence or dependency tracking, private versus shared parts of 1:1 notes, or how much of the goal and check-in record is pulled into the year-end review. 2 7 8 12 2
The People Analyst
Weighted OKRs and goal management, weekly check-ins that automatically track progress toward goals, 1:1s with agendas both sides add to, notes and action items, high fives and continuous requested feedback, with Slack and MS Teams notifications and AI-assisted reviews grounded in goals, check-ins and 1:1 notes so the year-end record does not start from memory. We found no public information on goal dependencies and confidence tracking, on logged goal changes, on which parts of 1:1 notes are private versus shared, or on configuring whether goal attainment affects ratings. 7 8 2 10
The Works Council Member
Weekly check-ins with automatic goal and OKR tracking, 1:1 agendas both sides can add to, requested feedback and High Fives, with Slack and MS Teams in the loop — the year-end record builds through the year rather than from memory. It falls short of the top band because we found no public information on logged goal-change history or on a stated private-versus-shared split in 1:1 notes. 6 7 8 12
The HR IT Integrator
Weekly check-ins that automatically track progress toward goals and OKRs, 1-on-1s with agendas both manager and report can add to, requested feedback and High Fives recognition are documented, with MS Teams and Slack in the integration catalogue. I found no public information on goal-change history, dependencies and confidence tracking, or a stated private-versus-shared split for 1:1 notes; the claim that reviews are drafted from real performance data at least suggests the cycle draws on the year's check-ins rather than memory. 7 8 10 12 2
The Skeptic
Check-ins, weighted OKRs, shared 1:1 agendas and High Fives form a real continuous layer, and the AI-assisted reviews are marketed as grounded in reviews, goals, 1:1 notes and check-ins — so the cycle can draw on the record instead of memory. We found no public information on goal cascading with dependencies and confidence tracking, goal change history, or a stated split between private and shared 1:1 notes, which is what separates a feedback feed from continuous performance management. 7 8 2 10
Learning, skills & succession
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Growing people rather than only rating them: learning paths or course delivery, a skills or competency framework, career paths and development plans, and talent reviews and succession planning for key roles.
0 — No development features; the product rates people but says nothing about developing them.
3 — A development-plan text field or a link to an external course catalogue, with no skills model and no succession view.
5 — Development plans linked to review outcomes, a configurable competency or skills framework, assigned learning content or integration with a named LMS, and career paths per role.
8 — Skills profiles per employee with gaps against role requirements, learning paths with completion tracking and mandatory training, talent reviews (such as a nine-box) with succession plans per key role, and internal mobility shown against open positions.
10 — Development is planned and measured: skills data maintained and versioned, learning outcomes linked to skills and reviews, succession coverage and risk reported per role, SCORM or xAPI content supported or a named LMS integrated both ways, and certificates and training records exportable.
The Head of HR
Growth Studio brings individual development plans, performance improvement plans and succession planning together with a nine-box talent matrix and career paths, competencies and skills mapping sit next to in-product microlearning modules, and LearnUpon is a named learning-system integration. We found no public information on skills-gap analysis against role requirements, on completion tracking or mandatory training, or on internal mobility against open positions — exactly what I would need before betting a succession plan on it. 1 2 12 2
The Managing Director
Career paths and development plans, a nine-box talent matrix with succession planning, PIPs and IDPs in Growth Studio, competencies and skills mapping, and manager microlearnings alongside a named LMS in LearnUpon. But we found no public information on learning-path completion tracking, mandatory training, skills gaps measured against role requirements, or internal mobility against open positions, so development is supported rather than planned and measured. 1 2 5 12 2
The People Analyst
The talent side is genuinely covered: a drag-and-drop 9-box talent matrix, a growth studio for individual development plans and succession planning, career paths, competency and skills mapping, microlearning and manager training, and a named LMS integration with LearnUpon. We found no public information on skills profiles with gaps computed against role requirements — the piece I look for first — nor on completion tracking or mandatory training, internal mobility against open positions, versioned skills data or exportable training records. 2 1 12 6 5
The Works Council Member
Career paths and development plans, a nine-box talent matrix with succession planning in Growth Studio, competencies and skills mapping, microlearnings and a named LMS in LearnUpon take this past the midpoint. We found no public information on skills-gap profiles against role requirements, on completion tracking for learning content, or on development plans being linked to review outcomes. 1 2 12
The HR IT Integrator
Growth Studio bundles development plans, PIPs and succession planning, alongside a 9-Box Talent Matrix, career paths, competencies and skills mapping, microlearning modules and a named LearnUpon LMS integration. I found no public information on skills-gap analysis against role requirements, learning-path completion tracking, mandatory training, or internal mobility shown against open positions. 1 2 12 2
The Skeptic
Career paths, development plans, a drag-and-drop nine-box talent matrix and Growth Studio succession planning exist, alongside a named LearnUpon integration and manager microlearnings. We found no public information on skills profiles with gap analysis against role requirements, learning-path completion tracking or SCORM and xAPI support, so the 'competencies and skills mapping' line reads as a feature name rather than an evidenced skills engine. 1 5 12 2
Works council, visibility & AI disclosure
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What the employer can put in a works agreement: visibility and access rules per role, anonymity thresholds for surveys and upward feedback, retention and deletion of review data, access logging, and disclosure and control of every AI feature that summarises, scores or suggests ratings.
0 — Nothing stated about who sees which review data, how long it is kept, or what the AI features process; "anonymous" feedback with no threshold.
3 — Role-based access mentioned in general terms and an assurance of confidentiality, but no anonymity threshold, no retention setting and AI features described only as benefits.
5 — Visibility rules per role documented, a configurable minimum group size for anonymous results, retention or deletion of review data configurable, and each AI feature named with its inputs and an option to disable it.
8 — Field-level permissions and private versus shared notes stated, access to review data logged, retention per data type, AI features off by default or switchable per module with the model provider named, and documentation or templates aimed at works councils or a works agreement.
10 — The vendor publishes what a works agreement needs: a complete list of the data each module processes and who sees it, audit logs exportable, deletion runs reportable, AI features never rating or ranking employees without a human action, the EU AI Act position stated, and EU processing for the AI features.
The Head of HR
The AI features are named — AMAYA, KONA, AI-Assisted Reviews, Focus Briefs, Meeting Assistant — with their inputs listed in plain terms (reviews, goals, engagement signals, 1:1 notes, check-ins, tenure, compensation, development plans, and for Kona meeting transcripts and recordings), scoped to existing permission settings, with a stated human in the loop who can edit the output. But we found no public information on a minimum group size for anonymous survey or upward-feedback results, on configurable retention per data type, on access logging, or on an option to switch individual AI features off — so what a works council could pin into an agreement is thinner than the product story. 3 9 10 10
The Managing Director
Credit where due: the AI features are named one by one — AMAYA, KONA, AI-Assisted Reviews, Focus Briefs, Meeting Assistant — with their inputs listed, permission-scoped access and a stated human in the loop with editing rights. What a works agreement would need is thinner: we found no public information on a minimum group size for anonymous survey or upward-feedback results, configurable retention periods, access logging, or an EU AI Act position, retention is a fixed policy rather than a setting, and KONA collects meeting transcripts and recordings. 3 10 2 10
The People Analyst
AI features are individually named — AMAYA, AI-Assisted Reviews, Focus Briefs, a coming KONA — with their inputs listed (reviews, goals, engagement signals, 1:1 notes, check-ins, compensation), a stated human in the loop for every decision, permission-scoped agents, and GDPR rights including on automated decision-making in the privacy policy, which also discloses that KONA collects meeting transcripts and recordings. We found no public information on a configurable minimum group size for anonymous survey or upward feedback, on configurable retention, on access logging, on an option to disable the AI modules, or on documentation aimed at works councils. 10 10 3
The Works Council Member
The AI features are named — AMAYA, KONA, AI-Assisted Reviews, Focus Briefs, Meeting Assistant — with their inputs listed, agents scoped to existing permission settings, a stated human in the loop for every decision, and Kona openly collecting meeting transcripts; published documents include a DPA, sub-processor list and supplemental AI terms. But we found no public information on a minimum group size below which survey or upward-feedback results are withheld, on configurable retention or deletion of review data, or on access logging, and no per-module switch to turn an AI feature off appears in the captures. 3 4 10 10
The HR IT Integrator
The AI features are named — AMAYA, AI-Assisted Reviews, Focus Briefs, the meeting assistant — with their inputs listed (reviews, goals, 1:1 notes, check-ins, tenure, compensation, development plans, and meeting transcripts for Kona), permission-scoped agents, a human-in-the-loop statement and a supplemental AI terms document. But retention is only stated as while the account is active, and I found no public information on a minimum group size for anonymised survey results, configurable deletion, access logging, field-level permissions, or documentation aimed at a works agreement. 3 4 9 10 10
The Skeptic
The AI features are at least named — AMAYA, KONA, AI-Assisted Reviews, Focus Briefs, Meeting Assistant — with their inputs listed and claims of permission scoping and a human in every decision, which is more disclosure than most vendors give. But we found no public information on a minimum group size for anonymous survey or upward-feedback results, configurable retention, access logging, an option to disable individual AI features, or any documentation aimed at a works council, and Kona's collection of meeting transcripts and recordings raises questions nothing captured answers. 3 10 10
HRIS sync, integrations & data portability
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How the tool fits next to the system of record and what leaves with the customer: employee and org-chart sync from the HR system, SSO and SCIM, collaboration-tool integrations, an API, and export of the full review, goal and feedback history.
0 — No HR-system integration and no export; employees and managers are maintained by hand and the history stays in the product.
3 — A CSV import of employees and a PDF export of single reviews, with no named HR-system integration and no API.
5 — Maintained sync with at least one HR system common in DACH (e.g. Personio, SAP SuccessFactors, HRworks), SSO, a documented API, and an export of review and goal data in a structured format.
8 — Several named HRIS integrations including org-chart and manager relations, SCIM provisioning, Microsoft Teams or Slack integration, webhooks, an API with published limits, and a bulk export of the complete review, goal and feedback history.
10 — Portability is designed in: a versioned API with a deprecation policy, a documented full export (structured data plus attachments) available at contract end, deletion that propagates to synced systems, and the vendor maintaining the German HRIS integrations itself.
The Head of HR
Sixteen named HRIS integrations including Workday, UKG, ADP and Rippling feed an automatic-sync connector that sets up in minutes, Okta and OneLogin handle provisioning, Slack and Teams are connected, a public API and SFTP are offered, and the contract grants customers the right to export evaluations, notes and performance data for HR records. We found no public information on webhooks, on published API limits, on a bulk export of the complete goal and feedback history with attachments, or on org-chart and manager-relation sync — and among the named HRIS systems we found no integration for the DACH staples Personio, SAP SuccessFactors or HRworks. 3 11 12 10
The Managing Director
Sixteen named HRIS integrations from ADP to Workday behind a connector that syncs automatically and sets up in minutes, Okta and OneLogin provisioning, an API, SFTP, Teams and Slack, and a stated right to export evaluations, notes and performance data. We found no public information on API limits, webhooks, or a documented bulk export of the complete review, goal and feedback history, and the captured list names none of the HR systems a German mid-sized buyer would look for — Personio, SAP SuccessFactors, HRworks. 3 11 12
The People Analyst
Sixteen named HRIS integrations including Workday, UKG and ADP with an automatic-sync HRIS connector, Okta and OneLogin for sign-on and user provisioning, Slack and MS Teams, an API and SFTP, and a stated right to export evaluations, notes and performance data for HR records. We found no public information on published API limits, webhooks, org-chart and manager-relation sync, or a documented bulk export of the complete goal and feedback history, and no DACH-common HRIS such as Personio or SAP SuccessFactors appears among the named systems. 12 11 3 4
The Works Council Member
A long named HRIS list from ADP and BambooHR to Workday and UKG with an automated connector and user sync, plus Okta and OneLogin provisioning, MS Teams and Slack, API and SFTP options, and a stated right to export evaluations, notes and performance data. We found no public information on webhooks, published API limits, org-chart and manager-relation detail in the sync, or a documented bulk export of the complete history. 3 11 12
The HR IT Integrator
Sixteen named HRIS integrations with an automatic-syncing HRIS Connector, Okta and OneLogin provisioning sync, Teams and Slack, SFTP and an API listing are published, and the privacy policy grants export of evaluations, notes and performance data for HR records. Nothing states that org-chart and manager relations are synced, the API appears only as a catalogue entry without published documentation or limits, the export format is unspecified, and none of the named HRIS are the systems I run in DACH — I found no public information on connectors for Personio or SAP SuccessFactors. 3 11 12
The Skeptic
Sixteen named HRIS integrations with an automatic-sync connector, Okta and OneLogin provisioning, Teams and Slack, and an export of evaluations, notes and performance data for maintaining HR records. We found no public information on SCIM by name, webhooks, API documentation with published limits, or the format and completeness of a bulk history export — and among the captured HRIS names we found none of the ones common in DACH such as Personio or SAP SuccessFactors. 3 11 12
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where performance, feedback and survey data lives, who the contracting entity is, and who the subprocessors are — including the AI providers that summarise reviews and feedback. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline. Weighted with the employment relationship in mind: these are judgements about people who did not choose the vendor.
0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated, subprocessors unnamed, and AI processing of unclear location.
3 — EU hosting offered as an option while the contracting entity is non-EU, or the subprocessor list is absent, or AI features run outside the EU without saying so.
5 — EU hosting as standard and an EU contracting entity, but parts of the chain — AI summaries, email, analytics or support — are non-EU without an explained safeguard.
8 — EU hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, subprocessor list published including AI providers, and a DPA that covers employee performance data as the customer's processing.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: vendor, entity, hosting and every subprocessor European, certification published, and the AI features run within the EU on providers the customer can see.
The Head of HR
The vendor is a San Francisco company with its privacy contact in California, and we found no public information on data residency, hosting location, the contracting entity's jurisdiction, or where the AI features process reviews and meeting transcripts. A data-processing agreement, sub-processor list and technical measures are offered as named legal documents, but their contents are not captured, so there is nothing a European buyer can verify about the chain — with these being judgements about employees who did not choose the vendor. 3 4
The Managing Director
The vendor is 15Five, Inc. of San Francisco with US terms and DMCA references, and we found no public information confirming where performance and feedback data is hosted, any EU contracting entity, or the subprocessors behind the AI that summarises reviews and meeting transcripts. Judged with the employment relationship in mind — these are judgements about people who did not choose the vendor — that is the floor of the scale. 3 4
The People Analyst
The vendor is 15Five, Inc. of San Francisco with a US privacy contact and US-DMCA language in the terms, and we found no public information on hosting location, contracting entity, or the subprocessors — including the AI providers that summarise reviews, feedback and meeting transcripts — so the location of AI processing is unclear. For judgements about employees who did not choose the vendor, an entirely unresolved chain places this at the bottom. 3 4 10
The Works Council Member
This is 15Five, Inc. of San Francisco — the privacy contact is a San Francisco address and the terms invoke the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act — and we found no public information on data residency, an EU contracting entity, or where the AI features that read reviews, 1:1 notes and meeting transcripts actually run. A DPA and sub-processor list are named among the published documents, but nothing captured shows their contents or any European link in the chain, and I could not sign a works agreement on that basis. 3 4 10 10
The HR IT Integrator
The vendor is 15Five, Inc. of San Francisco with a US privacy contact, and I found no public information on hosting location, data residency, or where the AI features process; a sub-processors document is listed among the legal resources but its contents are not shown in the captured pages. For employee performance data on people who did not choose this vendor, the chain is unevidenced end to end. 3 4 10
The Skeptic
This is a San Francisco vendor with a San Francisco privacy contact, and the captured pages state nothing about where performance, feedback and survey data is hosted, which subprocessors — including any AI providers — process it, or where the AI features run. A sub-processor document is listed among the legal resources, but its contents were not captured, so we found no public information confirming any European element of the chain. 3 4
Pricing transparency
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the real annual cost from public pages alone: the pricing basis (per employee, per active user, per module), which of reviews, goals, engagement surveys and learning sit in which tier, add-ons for AI or analytics, and the minimum term.
0 — No public prices at all; every module is a sales conversation.
3 — A starting price exists, but the pricing basis or which modules it covers is unstated — the invoice is unknowable.
5 — Module or tier prices public with the pricing basis given, but at least one commonly needed piece (engagement surveys, learning, AI features, HRIS integration) is unpriced.
8 — Every module or tier priced publicly with its basis, add-on prices listed, minimum headcount, minimum term and VAT treatment given.
10 — Complete price computability: the annual invoice derivable for a given headcount and module mix, with every add-on, implementation fee and overage published.
The Head of HR
The captured pricing pages show feature packaging — Perform, Engage, Compensation, and a total platform described as everything in Engage and Perform plus the HR dashboard and select microlearnings — but we found no public prices, no pricing basis per employee or per module, no minimum term and no add-on prices such as for the AI features. The annual invoice is simply not computable without a sales conversation. 2 2
The Managing Director
The captured pricing pages show which capabilities sit in Engage, Perform and the total platform, but we found no prices on them — no figures, no per-employee or per-user basis, no minimum term, and no public information on what the AI features cost as add-ons. For a sixty-person company, the annual invoice is simply not computable from public pages. 2 2
The People Analyst
The captured pricing pages show the module structure — Perform, Engage, and a bundle adding the HR dashboard, manager training microlearnings and more — but we found no public price figures of any kind, so an annual cost cannot be computed from the pages. We found no public information on the pricing basis, add-on prices for the AI features, minimum headcount, minimum term or VAT treatment. 2 2
The Works Council Member
The captured pricing pages show which capabilities belong to which bundle — Engage, Perform, and a total platform adding the HR dashboard and manager microlearnings — but we found no public price figures, no pricing basis, no minimum term and no VAT treatment. From these pages alone the annual invoice cannot be computed. 2 2
The HR IT Integrator
The captured pricing pages map capabilities to Perform, Engage and the total platform, which at least tells a buyer which module holds what. No figures, pricing basis, minimum term or VAT treatment appear anywhere in the captures, so the annual cost is not computable from public pages alone. 2 2
The Skeptic
The captured pricing pages show which features sit in which module — Perform, Engage, Compensation, manager products — but we found no price figures, pricing basis, minimum headcount or minimum term anywhere in the captures. Without even a starting figure, the annual invoice is not computable from public pages alone. 2 2
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about 15Five
Is 15Five European?
No. whats-best.ai classifies 15Five as Rest of world.
Where does 15Five store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does 15Five have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to 15Five?
As of 15 Oct 2026, the panel rates Culture Amp (3/5), Small Improvements (3/5) and Leapsome (2.5/5) highest among the other 15 Talent Management products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is Small Improvements (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: 15Five alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 1 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Subprocessors. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- 28 pricing facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 19 product facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 8 integrations facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 5 legal facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 4 data facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 4 support facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 compliance facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 subprocessors facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 hosting fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (12)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.15five.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page www.15five.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.15five.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Terms of service www.15five.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Performance reviews & calibration — found from sitemap www.15five.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Performance reviews & calibration — found from sitemap www.15five.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Goals, OKRs & continuous feedback — found from sitemap www.15five.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Goals, OKRs & continuous feedback — found from sitemap www.15five.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Works council, visibility & AI disclosure — found from sitemap www.15five.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Works council, visibility & AI disclosure — found from sitemap www.15five.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 HRIS sync, integrations & data portability — found from sitemap www.15five.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 HRIS sync, integrations & data portability — found from sitemap www.15five.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →