Talent Management
360Learning
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by 360Learning GmbH · 360learning.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.
360Learning at a glance
- Vendor
- 360Learning GmbH
- 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 360Learning 1.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. 360Learning, the Karlsruhe-based German arm of a vendor founded in Paris, is entered here as talent management, and the scores track that gap. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 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
360Learning, the Karlsruhe-based German arm of a vendor founded in Paris, is entered here as talent management, and the scores track that gap. Learning and development is the strength at 6-7: a pre-built ontology of 20,000 skills with import, skills profiles with assessment history and gap visualization, career profiles, upskilling campaigns, learning paths and a SCORM player. Performance reviews and goals and feedback score low because the review material sits in a guide describing the vendor's own company practice, while the product evidences learner self-assessment with manager validation and personal growth targets. Pricing transparency is weakest at 0-1 — no price, pricing basis, tier mapping or minimum term appears, only a free 15-minute demo. Scores spread widest on codetermination and privacy, where judges differ less over the facts — no public information on who may see which data, retention, or minimum group size for anonymous results — than over how hard to penalize the silence. Sovereignty rests on a European imprint while the four sovereignty attributes all came back unknown; integrations and portability sits at a flat 4.
Speaks for it
- Learning and development scores 6-7, led by a pre-built ontology of 20,000 standard skills with imports for an existing ontology and existing assessments
- Skills profiles with assessment history and gap visualization against required levels, plus career profiles with role history and target jobs
- Certified Personio integration with automatic user data sync, a named SAP SuccessFactors connection, and a certified Slack integration for training notifications
- Learning paths, onboarding academies and a SCORM player for structured delivery, with courses authorable by any employee
- Dedicated skills consultants and implementation services support the rollout toward a skills-driven organization
Held against it
- Performance review scores run 1-3, the only review material being a vendor guide about its own company practice
- Pricing transparency scores 0-1: the captured pricing page contains no price figure, pricing basis, module-to-tier mapping or minimum term
- We found no public information on who may see which data, retention of assessment data, or a minimum group size for anonymous results
- AI features — content builder, skills tagging, recommendations, role suggestions, SkillsGPT — are described only as benefits, with no stated inputs, model provider or way to switch them off
- We found no public information on SSO, SCIM provisioning, webhooks, or an export of learning and skills history
Best for
- You want a skills-based learning platform — 20,000-skill ontology, gap visualization, upskilling campaigns, SCORM playback — and will run performance reviews in another tool
- Your HR system is Personio or SAP SuccessFactors and you want automatic user data sync into training assignments
- You build courses with in-house subject-matter experts and want collaborative authoring, academies and learning paths
- You want learners to set their own growth targets and self-assess skills with manager validation
Avoid if
- You need a structured review cycle with templates, rating scales, calibration and kept review history, since the product evidences only skills self-assessment with manager validation
- You must draft a works agreement before employee skills data moves and need published terms on visibility, retention and AI processing
- Your budgeting requires a computable price from public pages before entering a sales process
- You need company-wide goal alignment, check-ins and recognition rather than personal learning goals
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Performance reviews & calibration | 1 of 5 |
| Goals, OKRs & continuous feedback | 1 of 5 |
| Learning, skills & succession | 3.5 of 5 |
| Works council, visibility & AI disclosure | 1 of 5 |
| HRIS sync, integrations & data portability | 2 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1 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
Everything review-shaped here is thin: a guide page names self-assessments, management by objectives and 360-style reviews with peer and upward input, and in the skills product managers validate learner self-assessments. I found no public information on configurable templates or rating scales, calibration across teams, reminders, employee sign-off, or a kept per-employee review history — without those I cannot defend a single rating in my cycle. 6 8
The Managing Director
The only structured input I can point to is skills self-assessment with manager validation, kept in per-learner skills profiles — no configurable cycles, rating scales, calibration or employee sign-off in evidence. A guide article recommends self-assessments, management by objectives and 360 reviews, but that is advice about review models, not a product that runs them, so a real yearly review would have to happen somewhere else. 6 8
The People Analyst
The only structured self-and-manager input evidenced is skills self-assessment with manager and admin validation, not a performance review cycle; the page recommending self-assessments, management by objectives and 360 reviews describes the vendor's own company practice rather than product features. We found no public information on review templates, rating scales, calibration across teams, or what each party to a review can see. 6 8
The Works Council Member
All the review material sits in a vendor guide that recommends self-assessments, management by objectives and 360 reviews and describes the firm's own quarterly cycle and salary computation — guidance about practice, not a description of the product. The product pages themselves show only learner self-assessments with manager validation for skills; we found no public information on configurable review templates, rating scales, calibration across teams, or what the employee versus the manager is allowed to see. 6 8
The HR IT Integrator
The product pages evidence skills self-assessments with scheduled prompts and manager validation, but no review cycle: every statement about performance reviews, quarterly cadence and 360 input comes from a vendor guide describing 360Learning's own company process. We found no public information on configurable templates, rating scales, calibration across teams, or what the employee versus the manager can see. 6 8
The Skeptic
The only review language sits on a guide page describing how 360Learning runs its own company — quarterly reviews, peer and upward input, level-based salaries — while the product's own module list (LMS, LXP, Academies, Skills, AI for L&D, Integrations) contains no review module at all. The nearest product capability is a skills self-assessment validated by a manager, which measures skill levels rather than performance, with no cycle, scale or per-employee review history evidenced. I score what the product shows, and that is nothing structured. 6 7 8
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
Learners can define their own growth targets and track progress against job requirements and personal development plans, which is a real goals feature, and management by objectives appears among the named review models. I found no public information on company or team goal alignment, check-ins, shared 1:1 agendas, feedback requests or recognition, and nothing shows goals feeding the year-end review rather than starting from memory. 8 6
The Managing Director
Goal setting here means learners defining their own growth targets against job requirements and development plans, not company and team goals the whole company can see, and I found no public information on check-ins, 1:1 agendas, feedback or recognition. The Slack partnership delivers training-assignment notifications, not check-ins, so nothing feeds a year-end review from memory rather than into it. 6 7 8 11
The People Analyst
Growth targets with progress tracked against job requirements and development plans are evidenced, and employees can declare learning needs that in-house experts answer — but these are personal learning goals, not company or team objectives with alignment. We found no public information on check-ins, 1:1 agendas, feedback or recognition, or any link from goals into a review cycle; the Slack integration carries training assignment notifications, not check-ins. 7 8
The Works Council Member
The only goal feature we found is learners defining their own growth targets and tracking progress against job requirements and development plans, with management by objectives appearing merely as a recommended model in a guide. We found no public information on check-ins, shared 1:1 agendas, feedback requests to named colleagues, or any line from goals into the year-end review. 8 6
The HR IT Integrator
Learners define their own growth targets and track progress against job requirements and personal development plans, with skill growth tracked in upskilling campaigns. We found no public information on company or team-level goal alignment, check-ins, 1:1 agendas, or feedback requests that could be pulled into a year-end review. 8
The Skeptic
What is evidenced is learner-defined growth targets tracked against job requirements — individual goals, not cascaded OKRs — with nothing on progress check-ins, 1:1 agendas, feedback requests or recognition; the Slack integration only pushes training notifications with one-click access. "Management by objectives" appears as a recommended model in the same marketing guide, not as product functionality. There is a goal object of sorts and no feedback layer around it. 8 11 6
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
This is the core of the product and it shows: a pre-built 20,000-skill ontology with import, skills profiles with gap visualization against role requirements, self-assessment with manager validation, career profiles with role history and targets, upskilling campaigns with growth tracking, learning paths and a SCORM player. The gap is succession: I found no public information on talent reviews or nine-box style views, succession plans per key role, internal mobility against open positions, or exportable certificates and training records. 8 7 2
The Managing Director
This is the home turf: a pre-built 20,000-skill ontology you can import into, skills profiles with gap visualization, career profiles with role history, learning paths and academies, upskilling campaigns with growth tracking, SCORM playback and a Skills API. I found no public information on talent reviews such as a nine-box, succession plans per key role, or exportable certificates and training records, which is what separates a strong learning tool from a full development and succession system. 1 2 7 8
The People Analyst
This is the strong suit: skills profiles with assessment history, gap visualisation against required levels, a 20,000-skill starting ontology plus import of an existing one and an assessment import, self-assessment with manager validation, SCORM playback, learning paths, academies, upskilling campaigns with growth tracking, and career profiles with target roles. For my succession bench, though, we found no public information on talent reviews such as a nine-box, succession plans per key role, internal mobility against open positions, skills-data versioning, or export of certificates and training records — so development is well supported but not planned and measured at the top of the scale. 2 7 8
The Works Council Member
This is the vendor's home ground: a skills framework built from a 20,000-skill database or an imported ontology, skills profiles with assessment history and gap visualisation against required levels, career profiles with role history and targets, learning paths and academies, a SCORM player, and upskilling campaigns with growth tracking. What holds it back is succession: we found no public information on talent reviews such as a nine-box, succession plans per key role, mandatory training, or internal mobility matched against open positions. 2 7 8
The HR IT Integrator
This is the product's centre: skills profiles with assessment history, gap visualization against role requirements, career profiles with role history and targets, learning paths and onboarding courses, a SCORM player, and a 20,000-skill ontology with import plus a Skills API. We found no public information on talent reviews such as a nine-box, succession plans per key role, mandatory training with completion tracking, or exportable certificates and training records. 8 7 2
The Skeptic
This is the real product and it runs deeper than a tag list: a pre-built ontology of 20,000 skills, skills profiles with assessment history, current-versus-required gap visualization, career profiles with role history and target jobs, upskilling campaigns with growth tracking, plus SCORM playback, learning paths and onboarding academies. What the pages never show is the top of the funnel — no talent review such as a nine-box, no succession plan per key role, and no evidence internal mobility is matched against open positions. I found no public information on certificates or training-record export either. 8 7 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
I found no public information on who can see which data, minimum group sizes for anonymous results, retention or deletion of assessment data, or access logging, and the dedicated privacy pages yielded none of it. Every AI feature — the AI-driven LMS, AI course creation, skills tagging, SkillsGPT — is presented purely as a benefit, with no statement of inputs, model provider or a way to switch it off. 1 8 9 10
The Managing Director
The captured privacy and GDPR pages give me nothing on visibility rules, anonymity minimums, retention or deletion settings, or access logging, and every AI feature — content builder, AI course creation, skills tagging, recommendations — is described purely as a benefit, with no inputs or opt-out stated. The only role structure in evidence is managers and admins validating learner assessments, so a works agreement would have to be built from nothing the vendor publishes. 1 2 8 9 10
The People Analyst
AI appears throughout — content builder, AI-driven course creation, skills tagging, SkillsGPT, content recommendations, role suggestions — but only ever described as benefits; we found no public information on what these features process, who the model provider is, or whether they can be switched off. Likewise we found no public information on anonymity thresholds, retention or deletion of assessment data, access logging, or documentation aimed at a works council; the only role distinction evidenced is managers and admins validating learner assessments. 1 2 8
The Works Council Member
I have nothing to draft a works agreement against: we found no public information on who can read an assessment or a manager's note, how long skills and assessment data is kept, or a minimum group size for anonymous results. The AI features — the AI-driven LMS, content builder, automatic skills tagging, content recommendations, role suggestions and the free SkillsGPT chatbot — are presented purely as benefits; we found no public information on their inputs, the model provider, or whether they can be switched off per module. The captured privacy and GDPR pages likewise yield no confirmable statements on retention or access. 1 3 8 9 10
The HR IT Integrator
The AI features — an AI-driven LMS, AI Content Builder, AI skills tagging and the SkillsGPT chatbot — are described purely as benefits, with no statement of their inputs or any option to disable them. We found no public information on visibility rules per role, anonymity thresholds, retention of assessment data or access logging; the only role distinction shown is managers and admins validating learner assessments. 1 8 2
The Skeptic
Every AI feature arrives as a benefit — the AI-driven LMS pitch, AI Content Builder, KI-gestützte Kurserstellung, SkillsGPT, automatic skills tagging — with no named inputs, no model provider and no off-switch the pages mention. Beyond managers and admins being able to validate assessments, I found no public information on who may see which data, how long it is kept, or any minimum group size for anonymous results. For a product that scores people's skills, that silence is the finding. 1 2 8
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
Personio is a certified partner with automatic user data sync, SAP SuccessFactors is named as a connected tool, Slack is certified for training notifications, and there is a Skills API plus imports for skills ontologies and assessments. The flow only runs inward: I found no public information on exporting review, goal or skills history, on SSO or SCIM provisioning, or on published API limits and webhooks. 12 2 11 8
The Managing Director
Personio is a certified partner with automatic user data sync, SAP SuccessFactors is named as a connected tool, Slack is certified for training notifications, and a Skills API exists — decent for my size. I found no public information on SSO, SCIM provisioning, org-chart or manager-relation sync, webhooks, or any export of the review, goal and feedback history, and the history question is the one that decides whether the data is mine. 2 8 11 12
The People Analyst
A Personio integration with automatic user data sync and certified-partner status is documented, SAP SuccessFactors is named as connected, Slack delivers training assignment notifications, and a Skills API plus assessment and ontology import exist. We found no public information on SSO, SCIM provisioning, webhooks, published API limits, or any bulk export of the complete history — the API evidence points at bringing data in rather than a guaranteed way to take it out, which matters to me since skills data must be analysable outside the tool. 2 8 11 12
The Works Council Member
Certified Personio sync with automatic user data, an SAP SuccessFactors connection promised as part of onboarding, a certified Slack integration and a Skills API are named and real. What keeps this low is portability: we found no public information on single sign-on, SCIM provisioning, published API limits, webhooks, or a structured export of review, goal or feedback history — nothing shows what leaves with the customer. 2 8 11 12
The HR IT Integrator
Automatic user data sync with Personio as a certified partner and a named connection to SAP SuccessFactors is a genuine start for the system of record, and a Skills API plus a certified Slack integration are named. But we found no public information on SSO or SCIM provisioning, on whether manager relations and the org chart sync, or on any bulk export of the skills, assessment and course history — the captured FAQ covers only importing existing content in — and nothing on what leaves with the customer at contract end. 12 2 11 8
The Skeptic
Personio sync is certified and automatic, SAP SuccessFactors is connected through onboarding services, Slack is a certified integration, and a Skills API plus ontology and assessment import exist. But I found no public information on SSO, SCIM, webhooks, published API limits, or — the part I always check — any export of learning or skills history, structured or otherwise. A half-built bridge: data comes in, and nothing on these pages says it leaves. 12 2 11 8
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 German imprint gives me a Karlsruhe contracting entity, and that is the one solid fact on the chain. I found no public information on where hosting sits, who the subprocessors are — including the providers behind the AI features — or whether the AI processing happens inside the EU. 4 1
The Managing Director
The imprint puts a German entity in Karlsruhe behind a Paris-founded company, which is where the confirmed facts end: we found no public information on hosting, on the contracting entity, or on a single subprocessor — including who processes the AI summaries and tagging. Everything the works council asks me first is invisible, so I can only score the European origin I can see. 1 4 9 10
The People Analyst
The legal notice names a German entity, but we found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, hosting location, ownership, or any subprocessor — including whoever processes the AI tagging, recommendations and chatbot. For judgements about people who did not choose the vendor, that is an unverifiable chain, and the independently sourced sovereignty attributes all came back unknown. 4 8
The Works Council Member
The legal notice names a company in Karlsruhe, so a European entity exists on paper, but everything a works council needs before employee data moves is open: we found no public information on where learning and skills data is hosted, who the subprocessors are, or where the AI tagging and recommendations run. The independently sourced sovereignty attributes came back unknown on all four points. 1 4 8
The HR IT Integrator
The imprint shows a German entity of a Paris-founded vendor, which is European. We found no public information on where the learning and assessment data is hosted, on the subprocessor list, or on which AI providers and locations sit behind the tagging, recommending and content-building features — I cannot evidence the chain a works agreement would ask about. 4 1 8
The Skeptic
A Karlsruhe imprint gives a German contracting arm of a French-founded vendor, but the captured pages state nothing about where skills and assessment data is hosted, name no subprocessors, and never say where the AI features that tag and recommend run. Employment data about people who never chose this vendor is resting on entirely unverified ground. 4 1
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 pricing page names modules and support options but quotes no price at all, and I found no public information on the pricing basis, which modules sit in which tier, minimum term or minimum headcount, or VAT treatment; the only price-adjacent statement anywhere is that the SkillsGPT chatbot is free. I cannot compute an invoice from what is published. 2 8
The Managing Director
The captured pricing page carries FAQs about content transfer and professional services and no figures at all — no price, no basis, no tiers, no minimum term — with only a free 15-minute demo and a free skills chatbot priced at nothing. For a sixty-person company I cannot even start to compute the annual invoice, so the first euro is a sales conversation. 2 7 8
The People Analyst
The captured pricing page names capabilities and service topics — professional services, individual setup and launch support, webinars, knowledge base — but we found no public price figure, pricing basis, tier breakdown, minimum headcount, minimum term or VAT treatment anywhere. What is priced in public is a free 15-minute demo, which points to a sales conversation rather than a computable annual invoice for my training budget. 2 7
The Works Council Member
From the captured pricing page we get FAQs about professional services and content transfer; we found no public price, pricing basis or minimum term. The modules — LMS, LXP, Academies, Skills, AI for L&D — are named but we found no prices for any of them; the only public commercial fact is a free 15-minute demo with no commitment. 2 7
The HR IT Integrator
The captured pricing page lists features, support offerings and an FAQ on professional services but contains no price figures, pricing basis or contract terms; the only publicly free items are a 15-minute demo and the SkillsGPT chatbot. The module names give structure, but no module carries a price, so the annual invoice is not computable from public pages. 2 7 8
The Skeptic
The captured pricing page lists what the product does — content and course management, SCORM player, smart recommendations, blended learning — and offers professional services, setup support and a free 15-minute demo, but no price, no pricing basis, no module-to-tier mapping and no minimum term anywhere. A buyer cannot derive so much as a per-user figure from these pages. 2 7
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 | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about 360Learning
Is 360Learning European?
Yes. whats-best.ai classifies 360Learning as EU-Made.
Where does 360Learning store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does 360Learning have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to 360Learning?
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: 360Learning alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 13 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- 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.
- 16 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
- 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 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
- 1 pricing 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
- 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 360learning.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page 360learning.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy 360learning.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Legal notice 360learning.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Legal information 360learning.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Performance reviews & calibration — found from sitemap 360learning.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Learning, skills & succession — found from sitemap 360learning.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Learning, skills & succession — found from sitemap 360learning.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Works council, visibility & AI disclosure — found from sitemap 360learning.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Works council, visibility & AI disclosure — found from sitemap 360learning.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 HRIS sync, integrations & data portability — found from sitemap 360learning.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 HRIS sync, integrations & data portability — found from sitemap 360learning.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →