Talent Management
Appraisd
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Appraisd Ltd · www.appraisd.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.
Appraisd at a glance
- Vendor
- Appraisd Ltd
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Appraisd 2.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Appraisd is a performance management platform from Appraisd Ltd — the pages note it is by Talos360 and now branded Talos Perform — for organisations with 50 to 5,000+ employees. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 20 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 21 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Appraisd is a performance management platform from Appraisd Ltd — the pages note it is by Talos360 and now branded Talos Perform — for organisations with 50 to 5,000+ employees. Its strongest showing is goals and feedback at 6-8: objectives connect across individual, team and company level with draft-and-confirm sign-off, customisable status markers and time-stamped updates, one-to-ones run from a template library, and objectives and progress updates are pulled into the year-end review. Performance reviews sit at 6 on configurable templates, calculated year-end scores weighting competencies and objectives, and drag-and-drop calibration on a nine-box grid. Learning and development spreads 4-6, split between evidenced succession tooling and undocumented learning delivery; judges differ on how far that gap should cost. Weakest are codetermination and privacy at 4-5 and sovereignty at 2-3, where a UK contracting entity, Microsoft Azure UK datacentres and no public confirmation of an EU hosting option leave the European question open. Persona-weighted totals span 4.5 to 6.0. Pricing transparency scores 0-2 outside those totals, with no public prices and a free trial and booked demo as entry points.
Speaks for it
- Objectives connect across individual, team and company level with draft-and-confirm sign-off, customisable status markers and time-stamped updates, and are pulled into the year-end review
- Year-end ratings are calculated by weighting competencies and objectives, with scores mapped automatically onto a customisable nine-box grid and adjustable by drag and drop
- Talent profiling flags critical roles, flight risks, training needs and employees with no successor, supported by predefined talent-review questions
- Integrations cover 25-plus HRIS providers with Workday, Oracle, BambooHR, Cascade, PeopleHR and Zenefits named, plus SSO via SAML 2.0, Azure and Google, a REST API, and PowerBI, Teams, Slack and Outlook connections
- Retention is configurable, administrators can anonymise or permanently delete user data, and the AI Notetaker has pause, delete and manage controls with HR seeing only that meetings happened
Held against it
- Sovereignty sits at 2-3: Appraisd Ltd contracts under United Kingdom governing law, customer data is stored in Microsoft Azure datacentres in the UK with "other options available", and we found no public information confirming an EU hosting option or the contents of the sub-processors list
- We found no public information on per-role visibility rules for review data, access logging, a minimum group size for anonymous results, or employee sign-off on reviews
- We found no public information on learning content, a named LMS, a skills framework with gap analysis, or completion tracking
- We found no public information on a bulk export of the complete review, goal and feedback history, SCIM provisioning, webhooks, or published API limits
- We found no public information on where the Tali-powered AI Notetaker processes its transcripts, on the model provider, or on the vendor's EU AI Act position
Best for
- You run a mid-sized organisation of 50 to 5,000+ employees and want configurable review frequency, calculated year-end scores and drag-and-drop calibration on a nine-box grid
- Your team sets OKRs, SMART objectives, V2MOMs or Rocks and wants check-ins and progress updates pulled into the year-end rating rather than rated from memory
- You need succession and talent-review tooling — nine-box mapping, critical roles, flight risks, no-successor flags — more than learning delivery
- You already run a named HRIS such as Workday, Oracle or BambooHR and rely on SSO, a REST API and PowerBI
Avoid if
- You require an EU contracting and hosting chain — the captured pages name a UK contracting entity under UK governing law and Microsoft Azure UK datacentres, with EU model clauses as the stated transfer mechanism
- You must close a works agreement before rollout — the public material covers retention, deletion and the Notetaker's controls, and the GDPR policy page is dated 1 October 2019
- You expect the platform to deliver learning content and skills development — the documented development features are goals, competencies and plans, with succession tooling carrying the talent side
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Performance reviews & calibration | 3 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 | 2.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1.5 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
Customisable forms and per-team review frequency, calculated year-end scores that weight competencies and objectives, and drag-and-drop calibration views with automatic grid mapping give me ratings I can actually defend, and diversity filtering of aggregated data helps with bias. But I found no public information on reminders and deadlines per cycle, configurable 360-degree reviewer selection, employee sign-off, or a documented rule for what the employee, the manager and HR can each see. 3 4 7
The Managing Director
Reviews are genuinely configurable — custom forms, review frequency team-by-team, and year-end ratings calculated by weighting competencies and objectives — and the calibration side is real: scores map automatically onto a nine-box grid, managers drag and drop to adjust, and HR can filter aggregated ratings by diversity data. But we found no public information on employee sign-off, configurable reviewer selection for 360 input, cycle reminders and deadlines, or the rule for who may see what. 3 4 7
The People Analyst
Templates, questions and review frequency are configurable per team, year-end calculated scores weight competencies and objectives into a final rating, external reviews can be incorporated, and calibration is supported with automatic score mapping onto the talent grid plus drag-and-drop adjustment of calibrated scores. We found no public information on employee sign-off, configurable 360° reviewer selection, rating distributions across teams, or a documented rule for what the employee, the manager and HR can each see. 3 4 6 7
The Works Council Member
Review templates are customisable per team or cohort, frequency can be set team-by-team, and year-end ratings are calculated by weighting competencies and objectives, with calibration shown as drag-and-drop score changes on a grid mapped from manager ratings. What I could not find: any statement of employee sign-off or acknowledgement, of what the employee, manager and HR may each see, or that a calibration change is attributed to a named person. Without those, I cannot take this into a works agreement. 3 4 6 7
The HR IT Integrator
Review frequency, forms and templates are configurable per team or cohort, year-end ratings are calculated by weighting competencies and objectives, and calibrated scores can be viewed and dragged on the talent grid ready for calibration conversations. What I do not find is the paper trail a system of record needs: no public statement of who may see a review, no per-cycle reminders or deadlines, and peer or external reviewer selection is only hinted at by the phrase incorporating external reviews. 3 4 5 7
The Skeptic
Customisable review frequency per team, editable forms and calculated year-end scores that weight competencies against objectives are evidenced, and calibration is real — drag-and-drop calibrated scores with automatic mapping onto a nine-box grid ready for calibration conversations. But I found no public information on 360° reviewer selection, employee sign-off, or a documented rule for what the employee, manager and HR can each see. 3 4 7
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
Objectives connect across company, team and individual with on/off-track status markers, timestamped mini-updates, a check-in template library, mutual 1:1 requests, and objectives that pull into the year-end review so I am not rating from memory — with Slack and Teams integrations for the in-between work. We found no public information on goal change history, 1:1 notes with stated private and shared parts, or feedback requests to named colleagues. 5 6 11
The Managing Director
This is the core of what I'm buying: objectives connect across individuals, teams and company with on-track and off-track markers and timestamped updates, one-to-ones can be requested by either side with a template library and automatic creation, and all of it is pulled into the year-end review rather than rebuilt from memory. Check-ins even carry engagement questions, and Outlook, Teams and Slack keep the nudges where people already work. On the edges we found no public information on private versus shared parts of one-to-one notes, feedback requests to named colleagues, or dependencies and confidence tracking between goals. 1 5 6
The People Analyst
Objectives connect across individuals, teams and the company — OKR, SMART, V2MOM or Rocks — with draft and confirmed sign-off, customisable on-track/off-track markers, timestamped mini-updates and shared objectives, while one-to-ones run from a template library, can be mutually requested, store feedback in the check-in and work through Slack, Outlook and Teams. The part I weigh most is that objectives and progress updates pull into the review and are weighted in the final score, so the year-end rating draws on the record rather than memory; we found no public information on dependencies, confidence tracking, or stated private versus shared parts of one-to-one notes. 4 5 6 11
The Works Council Member
The loop between cycles is real: objectives connect across individual, team and company level with time-stamped updates and configurable status markers, one-to-one check-ins can be requested by either side with templates per team, and objectives and progress updates are pulled into the review so the rating does not start from memory. Slack, Teams and Outlook integrations for check-ins are named. I found no public information on whether one-to-one notes split private from shared parts, on feedback requests to named colleagues, or on goal dependencies and confidence tracking. 1 5 6
The HR IT Integrator
Objectives connect across individual, team and company level with draft-and-confirm sign-off, custom status markers and time-stamped updates, one-to-ones run on a template library with mutual check-in requests from manager and employee, and feedback stored in check-ins can be pulled into the review — with Slack, Teams and Outlook integrated alongside. I found no public information on goal dependencies, confidence tracking, or how private versus shared parts of 1:1 notes are separated. 1 5 6 11
The Skeptic
Objectives connect across individuals, teams and company with customisable status markers and timestamped updates, check-ins run between reviews with templates per team, and — the test I always apply — objectives and progress updates are pulled into the review itself rather than leaving the year-end rating to memory, with Teams and Slack integrations for check-ins and feedback. Dependencies, confidence tracking and a stated private-versus-shared split for 1:1 notes went unevidenced. 5 6 1 11
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
The succession side is genuinely evidenced: a customisable nine-box with automated score mapping from manager ratings, talent profiling that flags critical roles, flight risks, training needs and no-successor cases, plus development plans and personal development goals sitting alongside objectives and competencies that feed review scoring. The learning side is thinner — we found no public information on a skills framework with gap analysis, learning content or a named LMS, career paths per role, or completion tracking. 4 7
The Managing Director
The succession half is genuinely there: a customisable nine-box with automated score mapping, talent profiling for critical roles, flight risks and people with no successor, and predefined talent review questions. Development itself exists as development goals within the objectives flow and competencies in the review, but we found no public information on learning paths or course delivery, a skills framework with gap analysis, career paths per role, or any LMS integration. It rates and slots people well; growing them appears to be left to us. 4 5 7
The People Analyst
The succession bench is genuinely there: a customisable nine-box with automatic mapping of manager ratings ready for calibration conversations, predefined talent-review questions, and talent profiling that flags critical roles, flight risks, training needs and no-successor cases, alongside development plans and weighted competencies in the review. We found no public information on a skills framework with gap analysis against role requirements, learning content or a named LMS, completion tracking, or internal mobility against open positions — so development is planned through reviews rather than measured through a skills model. 7 8 4
The Works Council Member
The succession side is genuinely there: a customisable nine-box grid with manager ratings mapped onto it automatically, profiling for critical roles, flight risks and employees with no successor, predefined talent review questions, and development plans alongside competencies weighted in the year-end rating. I found no public information on learning paths or course delivery, skills profiles with gaps against role requirements, a named LMS integration, career paths per role, or internal mobility against open positions. For a tool that scores people, growing them is documented as plans, not as content. 4 5 7
The HR IT Integrator
Succession planning is well evidenced: a customisable nine-box with scores automatically mapped from manager ratings, talent profiling for critical roles, flight risks and missing successors, and predefined talent-review questions. Development itself shows up only as development goals and a plan prompt; I found no public information on a skills or competency framework maintained per role, learning content or a named LMS, completion tracking, or internal mobility shown against open positions. 3 7
The Skeptic
The succession half is genuinely there: a customisable nine-box with automated score mapping, talent profiling that flags critical roles, flight risks, training needs and no-successor cases, plus development plans and predefined talent-review questions. But I found no public information on learning paths, course delivery, an LMS integration or skills profiles with gaps — competencies appear only as weighted inputs to a rating, so growth is asserted more than evidenced. 7 4 5
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
Some of this could go into a works agreement: configurable retention, administrator tools to anonymise or permanently delete data, clear controller and processor roles in the DPA, and an AI feature actually named — Notetaker, powered by Tali — with pause and delete controls and a statement that HR sees when meetings happen, not the content. But I found no public information on role-based visibility rules for review data, a minimum group size for anonymous results, access logging, or any EU AI Act position. 9 10
The Managing Director
Some of what a works council would ask about is documented: retention is configurable, administrators can permanently delete or anonymise user data, and the AI Notetaker is named, with control to pause, delete or manage recordings and HR seeing when meetings happened rather than what was said. Beyond that we found no public information on visibility rules per role for review data, a minimum group size for anonymous results, access logging, or material aimed at a works agreement — and nothing describing the inputs and controls of the score mapping and calibration features. 9 10 11
The People Analyst
Retention is configurable, the AI notetaker is named with its input (automatic meeting transcription), user controls to pause, delete or manage recordings, and a stated scope that HR sees when meetings happen rather than their content. We found no public information on role-based or field-level visibility rules for review data, a minimum group size for anonymous survey results, access logging, or documentation aimed at works councils. 9 10
The Works Council Member
Some of what I need is on the record: retention is configurable, administrators can anonymise or permanently delete user data, and the AI notetaker is named with its inputs and user controls — recordings can be paused, deleted or managed, and HR sees when meetings happened, not what was said. Missing is everything the co-determination questions turn on: I found no public information on a minimum group size for anonymous results, on access logging, on who may read which review field, on the model provider behind the AI or where it processes, or on the vendor's EU AI Act position — and the GDPR policy page itself is dated 1 October 2019. 9 10
The HR IT Integrator
Retention is configurable, administrators can anonymise or permanently delete user data, controller and processor roles are stated with a published DPA, and the AI Notetaker is named with its inputs plus pause, delete and manage controls, HR seeing only that a meeting happened rather than its content. For a works agreement I still come up short: no anonymity minimum for engagement or survey results, no per-role visibility rules for review data, and no access logging is publicly described. 2 9 10
The Skeptic
The GDPR policy names controller and processor roles and offers anonymisation or permanent deletion, and the Notetaker page goes beyond benefit-babble — recording pause and delete controls, configurable retention, and HR seeing when meetings happen rather than their content. But there is no anonymity threshold despite engagement questions running inside check-ins, no access logging, no works-council material, and the provider behind the Tali-powered AI is unnamed. 9 10 6
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
Sync with 25+ HRIS providers including Workday, Oracle, BambooHR and Cascade, SSO via SAML 2.0, Azure and Google, a REST API, and Teams, Slack, Outlook and PowerBI connections make the tool sit well next to the system of record. What leaves with the customer is the open question: we found no public information on a structured export of the full review, goal and feedback history, on SCIM provisioning, or on published API limits. 1 11
The Managing Director
Twenty-five-plus named HRIS integrations including Workday and Oracle, SSO across the usual providers, a REST API, and Teams, Slack and Power BI connections — convincing breadth for a company my size. The catch is leaving: we found no public information on a structured export of the full review, goal and feedback history, and none on SCIM provisioning, webhooks or published API limits. 1 11 12
The People Analyst
Sync with 25+ named HRIS providers including BambooHR, Workday, Oracle, PeopleHR, Cascade and Zenefits, SSO via SAML2/Azure/Google, a REST API for custom integrations, and a PowerBI connection mean performance data can be analysed outside the tool. We found no public information on automated user provisioning, webhooks, published API limits, or a bulk export of the complete review, goal and feedback history — for a system that holds people's records, that last silence matters to me. 1 11 12
The Works Council Member
The integration list is strong: over twenty-five HR systems claimed with Workday, Oracle, BambooHR, PeopleHR, Cascade and Zenefits named, single sign-on via SAML, Azure and Google with providers like Okta listed, a REST API, plus Teams, Slack, Outlook and Power BI. I found no public information on a bulk export of the complete review, goal and feedback history, on SCIM provisioning, webhooks or published API limits — what leaves with us at contract end is the part the public pages leave unanswered. 1 11
The HR IT Integrator
This is a real integration stack: 25-plus HRIS providers including Workday, Oracle, BambooHR, PeopleHR and Cascade, SSO via SAML2.0, Azure and Google, a REST API for custom integrations, and Teams, Slack, Outlook and PowerBI connections. The pieces I need for the day the contract ends are unevidenced — I found no public information on SCIM provisioning (only a user provisioning system's terms listed among legal documents), org-chart or manager-relation sync, published API limits, or a bulk export of the complete review, goal and feedback history. 1 2 11 12
The Skeptic
The connect side holds up: 25+ HRIS providers claimed with Workday, Oracle, BambooHR, Cascade, PeopleHR and Zenefits named, SSO across SAML2, Azure and Google, a REST API, Teams, Slack and Power BI. The leaving side is the problem — I found no public information on SCIM provisioning, webhooks, published API limits, or a bulk export of the complete review, goal and feedback history, so what happens at contract end is a sales answer. 1 11 9
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 contracting entity is Appraisd Ltd under UK law, part of Talos360, and the captured pages state that customer data sits in Microsoft Azure UK datacentres with EU model clauses for transfers — a UK chain rather than an EU one, with hosting "other options" mentioned but not detailed. We found no public information on the contents of the subprocessor list or on where the Tali-powered AI processing runs, and both matter when the data describes employees who did not choose this vendor. 2 9 11
The Managing Director
Hosting is stated plainly — Microsoft Azure datacentres in the UK, with other options mentioned — and the contracting entity and governing law are UK, with EU model clauses where data crosses borders. But we found no public information on ownership, the names of the subprocessors despite a subprocessor document being listed, or where the AI features process data. A UK vendor holding judgements about EU employees is a conversation, not an assurance. 2 9 11
The People Analyst
Customer data is stored in Microsoft Azure datacentres in the UK with EU model clauses for transfers, but the contracting entity is Appraisd Ltd under United Kingdom law — outside the EU — and the AI notetaker runs on unnamed "enterprise-grade AI" with no stated location. A sub-processors document appears in the legal inventory, yet we found no public information on who the sub-processors are, on a named EU hosting option, or on where the AI processing runs; for judgements about employees who did not choose the vendor, that is thin. 2 9 10 11
The Works Council Member
Everything captured points to the United Kingdom: a UK contracting entity under UK governing law, customer data in Microsoft Azure UK datacentres, and "other options available" without saying where; transfers that cross EU borders are said to use EU model clauses. I found no public information confirming an EU hosting option or entity, the contents of the sub-processor list including any AI provider, or where the AI features actually process. For data about people who did not choose this vendor, that is a non-EU chain with safeguards asserted rather than shown. 2 9 10 11
The HR IT Integrator
The captured pages put all customer data in Microsoft Azure UK datacentres with other options available, name Appraisd Ltd under United Kingdom governing law, and cover cross-border transfers with EU model clauses alongside ISO 27001 certification. A sub-processors document is listed but I found no public confirmation of its contents, of an EU hosting option, or of where the AI Notetaker processes its transcripts; a UK contracting entity hosting in the UK leaves the European sovereignty question open. 2 9 11
The Skeptic
The contracting entity is Appraisd Ltd under UK law and customer data sits in Microsoft Azure UK datacentres as standard, with 'other options available' unconfirmed as EU and transfers riding EU model clauses. A subprocessor document is listed in the legal inventory but its contents are not in evidence, and nothing on the captured pages says where the Tali AI processes review and meeting content. 2 9 10 11
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
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
A pricing page appears in the site navigation, but every figure is a sales conversation: I found no public information on any price, the pricing basis, which modules sit in which tier, add-ons, or the minimum term — only a demo and a free trial to book. 3 5
The Managing Director
A pricing page is linked, but not one figure appears in what I can see — no per-employee or per-module basis, no indication which modules sit in which tier, no minimum headcount or term. We found no public information on cost beyond 'book a demo' and a free trial, so the invoice is a sales conversation. 3 5
The People Analyst
The only public pricing signals are that a pricing page exists and a free trial with a bookable demo is offered; we found no public information on prices, the pricing basis, which modules sit in which tier, add-on prices, or minimum term. An annual cost cannot be computed from public pages alone. 3 5
The Works Council Member
The navigation shows a pricing page, but I found no public price figures, no pricing basis, and no statement of which of reviews, objectives, talent or the AI notetaker sits in which tier; the entry points on the pages are a free trial and a booked demo. No buyer can compute an annual invoice from that. 3 5
The HR IT Integrator
No price appears anywhere in what I can see: no figure, no pricing basis, no statement of which modules a price would cover — only a pricing link, a free trial and a demo booking. A buyer cannot compute the annual cost from the captured pages, so I score at the bottom. 3 5
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 ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Appraisd
Is Appraisd European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Appraisd is based.
Where does Appraisd store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
Does Appraisd have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Appraisd?
As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates Culture Amp (3/5), Small Improvements (3/5) and Leapsome (2.5/5) highest among the other 17 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: Appraisd alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 20 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 — Data residency, 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.
- 14 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
- 3 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
- 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
- 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 compliance 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 legal 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
- 2 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. 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 page www.appraisd.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Terms of service — found from the homepage www.appraisd.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Performance reviews & calibration — found from sitemap www.appraisd.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Performance reviews & calibration — found from sitemap www.appraisd.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Goals, OKRs & continuous feedback — found from sitemap www.appraisd.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Goals, OKRs & continuous feedback — found from sitemap www.appraisd.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Learning, skills & succession — found from sitemap www.appraisd.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Learning, skills & succession — found from sitemap www.appraisd.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Works council, visibility & AI disclosure — found from sitemap www.appraisd.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Works council, visibility & AI disclosure — found from sitemap www.appraisd.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 HRIS sync, integrations & data portability — found from sitemap www.appraisd.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 HRIS sync, integrations & data portability — found from sitemap www.appraisd.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →