whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Talent Management

Appraisd

Provenance unknown Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: not determined

0–5 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

Appraisd: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai Appraisd: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai (dark)

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

Appraisd alternatives, European ones first →

Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.

The Works Council Member

Weighted verdict

Has to sign the works agreement before any of this goes live. Asks who can read a manager's private note, how small a team may be before survey results stop being anonymous, how long ratings are kept, and whether any AI feature summarises or scores colleagues without a human deciding.

Same scores as the panel view — this lens weights them the way this judge cares.

Scored by The Works Council Member

Panel median The Works Council Member This judge’s scores over the panel median. Each label opens its reasoning below.
Scores per criterion, in stars out of 5
Criterion Panel median The Works Council Member
Performance reviews & calibration 3 of 5 3 of 5
Goals, OKRs & continuous feedback 3.5 of 5 3.5 of 5
Learning, skills & succession 3 of 5 3 of 5
Works council, visibility & AI disclosure 2 of 5 2 of 5
HRIS sync, integrations & data portability 2.5 of 5 2.5 of 5
European sovereignty 1.5 of 5 1 of 5

Performance reviews & calibration

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Goals, OKRs & continuous feedback

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Learning, skills & succession

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Works council, visibility & AI disclosure

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

HRIS sync, integrations & data portability

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

European sovereignty

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Pricing transparency not rated — the vendor publishes no price

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

0 of 4 dimensions proven

Built only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.

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

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.

Do you know more about Appraisd? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (12)

The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.

  1. 1 Vendor page www.appraisd.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Terms of service — found from the homepage www.appraisd.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Performance reviews & calibration — found from sitemap www.appraisd.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Performance reviews & calibration — found from sitemap www.appraisd.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Goals, OKRs & continuous feedback — found from sitemap www.appraisd.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Goals, OKRs & continuous feedback — found from sitemap www.appraisd.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Learning, skills & succession — found from sitemap www.appraisd.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Learning, skills & succession — found from sitemap www.appraisd.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Works council, visibility & AI disclosure — found from sitemap www.appraisd.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Works council, visibility & AI disclosure — found from sitemap www.appraisd.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  11. 11 HRIS sync, integrations & data portability — found from sitemap www.appraisd.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  12. 12 HRIS sync, integrations & data portability — found from sitemap www.appraisd.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →