Talent Management
Culture Amp
Rest of world Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Culture Amp Pty Ltd · www.cultureamp.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.
Culture Amp at a glance
- Vendor
- Culture Amp Pty Ltd
- 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 Culture Amp 3/5, the mean of 6 judges. Culture Amp is a talent management platform from Culture Amp Pty Ltd of Australia whose strength is the performance review cycle: self-reflection, peer and upward feedback, manager review and calibration views, backed by precise rules on who sees what. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 1 Oct 2026 to 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Culture Amp is a talent management platform from Culture Amp Pty Ltd of Australia whose strength is the performance review cycle: self-reflection, peer and upward feedback, manager review and calibration views, backed by precise rules on who sees what. Performance reviews score 7 to 8 and goals and feedback a flat 7; integrations and portability reach 6 to 7 on HRIS sync with Workday and BambooHR named, a documented developer API and CSV/XLSX exports. Sovereignty is the weak point at 3: hosting is the customer's choice among the United States, Europe and Australia, we found no public information on subprocessors, and the AI features run on AWS Bedrock and Google Vertex with no published region commitment. Learning and development scores 5 to 6, with no public information on succession planning, talent reviews or skills-gap analysis. Scores cluster within a point on nearly every criterion; the only two-point spread is codetermination and privacy (4 to 6, the Head of HR at the low end). Pricing transparency scores 1 to 2, with no public price figures found on the plans page.
Speaks for it
- Full review-cycle machinery in one flow — self-reflection, peer and upward feedback, manager review, calibration views, and reminders seven and one day before close
- Visibility rules documented in detail — collaborator comments never shown to the employee, personal notes private to the author, sensitive demographics hidden from scoped roles, plus an audit log of survey data extracts
- HRIS sync that rebuilds the 1-on-1 hierarchy when a manager changes, with Workday and BambooHR named, SSO in every plan, and a documented developer API
- Structured CSV and XLSX exports covering calibration, feedback, goals and self-reflections, with background processing for 10,000 or more subjects and a 30-day export window after termination
- A configurable competency framework — nine defaults and over a hundred curated competencies across twelve job groups — linked to roles and paired with admin-customisable Skills Coach and Go1 content
Held against it
- Sovereignty scores sit at 3: the entity named on the captured pages is Culture Amp Pty Ltd of Australia, and hosting is the customer's choice among the United States, Europe and Australia
- We found no public information on a subprocessor list, and the AI features run through Culture Amp-managed VPCs into AWS Bedrock and Google Vertex with no published region commitment
- Question text can be edited after a review cycle has gone live and administrators can edit reviews after sharing, with no public information on attribution of calibration rating changes
- We found no public information on succession planning, talent reviews such as a nine-box, skills-gap analysis against role requirements, or learning completion tracking
- We found no public information on a minimum group size for anonymous survey or upward-feedback results, or on retention rules per data type beyond one blanket statement with backups kept up to 90 days
Best for
- You want a complete review cycle — self-reflection, peer and upward feedback, manager review with calibration — and permission documentation detailed enough to negotiate a works agreement
- Your HR system is Workday or BambooHR and you want manager relationships and the 1-on-1 hierarchy to build themselves from an HRIS sync, with SSO included in every plan
- You need your people data out as well as in — calibration, feedback, goal and self-reflection exports in CSV or XLSX, plus a documented developer API for bespoke analysis
- You are rolling out development plans on a configurable competency framework with curated learning content rather than buying for succession analytics
Avoid if
- You require European hosting as the default and a European contracting entity — hosting in Europe is an option alongside the United States and Australia, and we found no public information on which entity contracts for a European customer
- You need an audit-locked review process — the captured pages state that question text can be edited while a cycle is live and that administrators can edit reviews after sharing
- Your priority is succession planning, talent reviews or skills-gap analytics — learning and development scores cluster at 5 to 6, and the captured pages document development planning rather than talent measurement
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Performance reviews & calibration | 4 of 5 |
| Goals, OKRs & continuous feedback | 3.5 of 5 |
| Learning, skills & succession | 2.5 of 5 |
| Works council, visibility & AI disclosure | 3 of 5 |
| HRIS sync, integrations & data portability | 3.5 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
Cycles run with self-reflection, peer and upward feedback and manager review, calibration views HR can adjust and export with bulk re-import of ratings from external sessions, reminders seven and one day before close, and clear rules on who sees collaborator comments, historical reviews and edits after sharing. I found no public information on rating distributions or bias analysis in calibration, on review criteria versioned per role or level, or on attributed rating changes — and the captured pages show question text can still be edited after a cycle has gone live, so the trail I would have to defend in a rating dispute is thinner than an auditable process. 5 6 12 14
The Managing Director
Calibration views, peer and upward feedback, self-reflection and manager review tabs, automated reminders and a documented rule on who sees what add up to a full cycle I could run without a consultant. It falls short of an auditable process: question text can still be edited after a cycle goes live, and the captured pages say nothing about attributed rating changes or criteria versioned before the cycle. 5 6 12 14
The People Analyst
Cycles run self-reflection, peer and upward feedback and manager review, with automated upward requests, manager-approved nominations, reminders before close, and calibration views plus calibration reports with a CSV export; visibility of each input is documented down to who may edit after sharing and what the employee never sees. We found no public information on review criteria fixed per role or level, rating distributions or bias checks, and the captured pages state question text can be edited even after a cycle goes live, so criteria are not locked before the cycle begins. 5 6 12 14
The Works Council Member
Self-reflection, peer and upward feedback and manager review stages with calibration views across teams, role-linked competencies and per-cycle reminders are all documented, and the permission guide states plainly who may see historical reviews. What holds it back for a works agreement: question text can be edited after a cycle goes live, performance administrators can edit reviews even after sharing, and we found no public information on criteria fixed before the cycle or on attribution and reasoning for rating changes made during calibration. 5 6 9 12 14
The HR IT Integrator
Calibration views with rating adjustments across groups, peer and upward feedback with manager-approved nominations, reminders tied to cycle close dates, and real visibility rules — collaborator comments never reach the employee, and AI summaries need two feedback sources and stay with managers and admins. We found no public information on rating-change attribution during calibration or on versioned criteria fixed before the cycle, and question text can even be edited while a cycle is live, which is exactly what I would have to explain in an audit. 5 6 12
The Skeptic
The cycle machinery is real: self-reflection, peer and upward feedback and manager review in one cycle, nomination-based reviewer selection with manager approval, reminders at seven and one days before close, calibration views where HR adjusts ratings across a group before finalising, and unusually clear rules on who sees what — down to collaborator comments never reaching the employee. What falls short of the top is the audit story: we found no public information on review criteria versioned and fixed before a cycle (the help pages describe editing question text after a cycle has gone live), and no public information on attribution or reasoning for rating changes during calibration or on bias checks and distribution analysis. Competencies do link to roles, and calibration views, peer and upward feedback and self-reflections export to CSV, XLSX and PDF. 5 6 9 12 14
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
Goals align to company objectives and map across teams and departments, 1:1s carry shared agendas with personal notes private to the author and reminders landing in email, Slack and Teams, and admins can export goal usage and anytime feedback alongside feedback requests inside review cycles. I found no public information on goal change history, dependencies or confidence tracking, and nothing showing check-in and 1:1 outcomes flowing into the year-end review with their dates — which is exactly the memory problem I buy this tool to solve. 6 7 8 14 8
The Managing Director
Goals align to company objectives with key results, 1:1 agendas are shared while personal notes stay private to the author, reminders land in Slack and Teams, and checked-off topics are grouped by date — the year-end conversation has material to draw on. I found no public information on dependencies, confidence tracking or a logged history of goal changes, so it does not reach the top. 7 8 8 14 3
The People Analyst
Goals align to company objectives and map across teams and departments, with exports covering goal usage, key results and alignment details; 1-on-1s carry shared agendas, private personal notes, dated discussed-topic history, calendar links and reminders through email, Slack and Microsoft Teams. We found no public information on goal dependencies, confidence tracking or logged goal-change history, and nothing on whether goal attainment feeds the year-end rating. 2 7 8 14 8
The Works Council Member
Goals align and map across teams with key results, 1:1s run on dated shared agendas with private notes explicitly stated as visible only to the author, feedback goes to named colleagues with continuous feedback readable only by sender and recipient, and reminders flow through Slack and Teams. We found no public information on goal dependencies and confidence tracking, a logged history of goal changes, or whether goal attainment feeds the year-end rating. 3 6 7 8 14 8
The HR IT Integrator
Goals align to company objectives and map across teams, 1-on-1s run on shared agendas with private notes stated as private, feedback can be requested from named colleagues, and reminders land in email, Slack and Teams. We found no public information on goal dependencies, confidence tracking or a logged goal-change history, and nothing on whether goal attainment is configurable in the rating. 7 8 14 8
The Skeptic
Goals align to company objectives and map across teams and departments, 1-on-1s run on shared agendas with personal notes stated as private to the author, feedback requests go to named colleagues with manager-approved nominations, and reminders land in email, Slack and Microsoft Teams. We found no public information on goal dependencies, confidence tracking or a log of goal changes, and no public information on check-ins or 1-on-1 outcomes being surfaced inside the year-end review with their dates. Organisation-wide goal reporting is evidenced: exports cover goal counts, draft versus published, alignment details and demographics. 2 7 8 14
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 framework is real: competencies with predefined proficiency levels, over a hundred ready-made ones across twelve job groups, admin editing and role linking in Career Paths, Skills Coach and Go1 courses admins can customise, plus development reporting dashboards and exportable plans. I found no public information on skills-gap profiling against role requirements, learning completion tracking or mandatory training, and nothing at all on talent reviews or succession planning for key roles — for a company like mine that retires a third of its leadership in five years, that silence is the deciding fact. 9 10
The Managing Director
Development plans run on a configurable competency framework with ready-made templates, Go1 and Skills Coach content and career paths per role — real structure, not a text box. I found no public information on succession planning, nine-box talent reviews, learning completion tracking or skills-gap profiles against role requirements. 9 10 2 12
The People Analyst
There is a genuine competency framework — nine defaults, over a hundred curated competencies across twelve job groups, editable by admins, with proficiency levels and links to roles in Career Paths — plus curated learning from Skills Coach and Go1 and development-planning reports on strengths and growth areas; since January 2024 new development plans are competency-based rather than skills-based. We found no public information on talent reviews, nine-box or succession planning, learning completion tracking or mandatory training, and no evidence of skills-gap analysis per employee against role requirements, which is where my succession bench lives. 9 10
The Works Council Member
There is a genuine competency framework — over a hundred competencies across twelve job groups with predefined proficiency levels, linked to roles, career tracks and Career Paths — plus named learning content from Skills Coach and Go1 that account administrators can customise, and development plans built on it. We found no public information on succession planning, talent reviews such as a nine-box, skills-gap analysis against role requirements, or completion tracking and mandatory training. 2 9 10
The HR IT Integrator
There is a real competency framework with proficiency levels, role-linked career paths across job groups and tracks, and named learning content from Skills Coach and Go1 that account administrators can curate. We found no public information on talent reviews, succession planning, skills-gap analysis against role requirements, or completion tracking — development is planned but not measured in the captured pages. 9 10
The Skeptic
The competency framework is real and configurable: nine defaults plus over a hundred curated competencies across twelve job groups, predefined proficiency levels, links to roles and Career Paths, and Skills Coach and Go1 learning content that admins can customise, with L&D reporting on top. Beyond that we found no public information on skills-gap analysis against role requirements, learning completion tracking or mandatory training, talent reviews or nine-box, succession plans per key role, or internal mobility against open positions. The succession half of this criterion is undocumented in what we captured. 9 10
Works council, visibility & AI disclosure
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What the employer can put in a works agreement: visibility and access rules per role, anonymity thresholds for surveys and upward feedback, retention and deletion of review data, access logging, and disclosure and control of every AI feature that summarises, scores or suggests ratings.
0 — Nothing stated about who sees which review data, how long it is kept, or what the AI features process; "anonymous" feedback with no threshold.
3 — Role-based access mentioned in general terms and an assurance of confidentiality, but no anonymity threshold, no retention setting and AI features described only as benefits.
5 — Visibility rules per role documented, a configurable minimum group size for anonymous results, retention or deletion of review data configurable, and each AI feature named with its inputs and an option to disable it.
8 — Field-level permissions and private versus shared notes stated, access to review data logged, retention per data type, AI features off by default or switchable per module with the model provider named, and documentation or templates aimed at works councils or a works agreement.
10 — The vendor publishes what a works agreement needs: a complete list of the data each module processes and who sees it, audit logs exportable, deletion runs reportable, AI features never rating or ranking employees without a human action, the EU AI Act position stated, and EU processing for the AI features.
The Head of HR
The permission matrix is genuinely workable for a works agreement — scoped HRBP access, sensitive demographics hidden, collaborator comments never shown to the employee, AI summaries built from at least two feedback sources and visible only to managers and admins, private notes and bookmarks stated, and an audit log of survey data extracts. But I found no public information on a configurable minimum group size for anonymous survey results, on retention settings per data type for review data, or on documentation aimed at works councils, and the AI infrastructure is named as AWS Bedrock and Google Vertex while I found no public information on the region it processes in. 3 6 12 8
The Managing Director
The role-permissions documentation is unusually precise — demographic scoping, hidden draft cycles, hidden sensitive fields, an audit log of data extracts — and the AI features are named with their visibility rules and infrastructure. But I found no public information on a minimum group size for anonymous results, per-data-type retention settings or materials aimed at a works council, which a works agreement here would need. 12 6 3 8
The People Analyst
Role-based visibility is documented in unusual detail — HRBP access scoped by demographics, draft cycles hidden, sensitive demographics withheld, collaborator comments never shown to the employee, private versus shared notes stated — and each AI feature is named with its inputs, its audience and account-level activation for AI Coach, with language models reached through AWS Bedrock and Google Vertex behind a managed proxy. We found no public information on a minimum group size for anonymous results, retention settings per data type, or documentation aimed at works councils, and the only logging evidenced is an audit log of survey data extracts. 3 6 12 8
The Works Council Member
The permission breakdown is detailed enough to negotiate a works agreement on — demographic scoping, hidden draft cycles, collaborator comments never shown to the employee, private notes visible only to the author, exports that hide feedback about the person exporting — and the AI features are individually named with who may see their summaries and the model infrastructure behind them. But we found no public information on a minimum group size for anonymous survey or upward-feedback results, retention is one blanket statement with backups kept up to 90 days rather than rules per data type, and we found no public information on works-council-facing documentation, an exportable access log for review data, or the EU AI Act position. 3 4 6 12 14 8
The HR IT Integrator
Role permissions are documented down to sensitive demographics and a demographic-scoped HRBP view, private versus shared notes are stated, and the AI features are named with their inputs — summaries require two sources and AI Coach is a separate tool activated at account level. We found no public information on a minimum group size for anonymous survey results, retention settings per data type, or access logging of review data beyond an audit log of survey extracts, so a works agreement would still need answers from the vendor. 3 6 12 8
The Skeptic
Role-permission documentation is the strong part: a full breakdown of who sees historical manager reviews, upward feedback and self-reflections, sensitive demographics hidden from scoped roles, an audit log of survey data extracts, and continuous feedback visible only to sender and recipient. The AI features are named — Comment Summaries, Highlights and Opportunities, Suggest Improvements, AI Coach — with some inputs stated (summaries built from a minimum of two feedback sources, visible only to managers and admins) and the model path described as AWS Bedrock and Google Vertex behind a managed proxy. But we found no public information on a minimum group size for anonymous survey or upward-feedback results, retention configurable per data type, a per-module off switch for the AI features, or documentation aimed at a works council or works agreement. 3 6 12
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
Every plan includes HRIS integrations, SSO and Slack and Microsoft Teams, Workday and BambooHR are named, the hierarchy and manager relations build themselves from an HRIS sync, and there is a documented developer API plus broad exports of calibration data, peer and upward feedback, self-reflections and goal usage, with a thirty-day export window after termination. I found no public information on SCIM provisioning, webhooks or published API limits, and no named HR system common in DACH such as Personio or SAP SuccessFactors — the sync story is credible but I cannot verify the pieces that make migrations routine. 2 3 4 8 13 14 1
The Managing Director
Workday and BambooHR are named for HRIS sync, the hierarchy updates automatically on manager changes, SSO and Slack/Teams sit in every plan, and a documented API plus CSV/XLSX exports cover reviews, feedback and goals with a 30-day export window after termination. I found no public information on SCIM provisioning, webhooks, published API limits or the HR systems common in DACH. 13 3 2 14 4 8
The People Analyst
A documented developer API for extracting people data, HRIS sync claimed with every major HR product with Workday and BambooHR named, SSO, Slack and Microsoft Teams integrations, and a broad structured export surface covering calibrations, peer and upward feedback, goals and self-reflections in CSV or XLSX, with background processing for large exports and a thirty-day export window after termination. We found no public information on SCIM provisioning, webhooks, published API limits or export of attachments, and no DACH-common HR system such as Personio or SAP SuccessFactors is named among the examples. 3 4 13 14 1
The Works Council Member
A documented developer API with manageable credentials, SSO and Slack/Teams in every plan, HRIS sync that even rebuilds the 1:1 hierarchy when a manager changes, and a range of structured CSV/XLSX exports including background processing for ten thousand or more subjects, with a 30-day export window after termination. We found no public information on SCIM provisioning, webhooks, published API limits, a full export including attachments, or deletion that propagates to the synced HR system. 2 4 8 12 13 14 1
The HR IT Integrator
HRIS sync with manager relations is genuinely built in — a new manager assignment from the HRIS sync auto-creates the 1-on-1 hierarchy — SSO is in every plan, Teams and Slack are integrated, and admin exports cover reviews, calibrations, feedback and goal alignment in CSV or XLSX with background processing for large sets, plus a documented thirty-day export window after termination. The only named HRIS examples are Workday and BambooHR; we found no public information on integrations with HR systems common in DACH, on SCIM provisioning, webhooks or published API limits. 4 8 12 13 14
The Skeptic
HRIS sync is real with Workday and BambooHR named and the org hierarchy updating from it, SSO is documented, the developer API has public documentation, Slack and Microsoft Teams ship in every plan, and the export surface is broad — calibration, peer and upward feedback, goals and self-reflections in CSV or XLSX, with a 30-day post-termination export window written into the terms. We found no public information on SCIM provisioning, webhooks, published API limits, or one bulk export of the complete history including attachments, and no DACH-common HR system such as Personio or SAP SuccessFactors appears by name in what we captured. 2 3 4 13 14
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 named on the site is Culture Amp Pty Ltd of Melbourne, hosting is offered in the United States, Europe or Australia at the customer's choice, support requests are processed in Ireland, and the AI features run through AWS Bedrock and Google Vertex in Culture Amp-managed VPCs, where I found no public information on the processing region. I found no published list of subprocessors, and no public information on data-processing agreements or certifications covering employee performance data — an Australian entity with EU hosting only as an option is at the low end of what I could defend to four hundred people who did not choose this vendor. 1 3
The Managing Director
The contracting entity is Australian, servers sit in the United States, Europe and Australia at the customer's choice, and support data is hosted in Ireland — Europe is an option, not the default. I found no public information on subprocessors or on where the Bedrock- or Vertex-backed AI features process, so the chain cannot be verified end to end. 1 3
The People Analyst
The vendor is Culture Amp Pty Ltd of Melbourne, and the captured pages state servers in the United States, Europe and Australia with the region chosen by the customer, and support data hosted in Ireland. We found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction on the vendor's own pages, on the subprocessor list, or on where the language-model processing runs, so European hosting comes as an option alongside a non-EU parent entity — a concern for data about people who did not choose this vendor. 1 3
The Works Council Member
Culture Amp Pty Ltd of Melbourne is the entity named on the site, hosting is the customer's choice among the United States, Europe and Australia rather than European as standard, and the AI features run through Culture Amp-managed VPCs into AWS Bedrock and Google Vertex with no published region commitment. We found no public information on the subcontractor list or on which entity actually contracts for a European customer, even though the German, UK and US entities are named in the terms. 1 3
The HR IT Integrator
The contracting entity is the Australian Culture Amp Pty Ltd, hosting is the customer's choice among the United States, Europe and Australia — so European hosting is an option rather than the standard — and the AI stack runs on AWS Bedrock and Google Vertex with no stated processing location for those models. We found no published subprocessor list on the captured pages. 1 3
The Skeptic
The contracting entity shown on the captured pages is Culture Amp Pty Ltd of Australia, hosting is the company's choice among the United States, Europe and Australia, and support requests are processed in Ireland — EU residency is an option rather than the standard. We found no public information on a subprocessor list, and the LLM infrastructure is named as AWS Bedrock and Google Vertex with no stated region. That is the low end of this criterion: an EU region on offer while the named entity is non-EU, and no public information on the subprocessor chain including the AI providers. 1 3
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 plans-and-pricing page exists and usefully separates tiers by company size — under 200, 200 to 999, and 1000 plus — with a clear list of what every plan includes and a named people-science consulting add-on. But we found no public price figures at all: no per-employee rate, no currency, no minimum term and no add-on prices, so the annual invoice cannot be computed from public pages before procurement talks begin. 2 1
The Managing Director
The plans page lists what every plan includes and splits service tiers by company size, but no figure appears — no price, no pricing basis, no minimum term, no VAT treatment. The invoice is unknowable from public pages; only an ROI calculator and the existence of a consulting add-on are published. 2 1
The People Analyst
The plans page publishes tier boundaries by headcount, what every plan includes, and the module lists for Engage and Perform, with People Science consulting named as an add-on to both. We found no public price figures at all — no per-employee or per-module price, no minimum term, no VAT treatment — so the annual invoice cannot be computed from the captured pages. 2 1
The Works Council Member
The pricing page maps what every plan includes, sizes the tiers by employee band and names a consulting add-on, yet we found no public information on any price figures, the pricing basis, minimum term or VAT treatment. A buyer cannot compute the annual cost from the public pages alone; every module price is a sales conversation. 2 1
The HR IT Integrator
The captured pricing page shows three tiers by company size and lists what every plan includes — AI Coach, SSO, HRIS integrations, Slack and Teams — plus a People Science consulting add-on, but we found no public price figures at all and no pricing basis such as per-employee cost. The invoice is not computable from public pages; I cannot budget an integration project against this. 2 1
The Skeptic
A plans-and-pricing page exists and says what every plan includes (AI Coach, SSO, HRIS integrations, Slack and Microsoft Teams, 1-on-1s, Shoutouts, Skills Coach), gives size bands of under 200, 200–999 and 1000+ employees, and names a People Science consulting add-on to Engage and Perform — but we found no public price on it: no figure, no pricing basis, no minimum term. Module placement is only inferable from phrases like subscriptions that include Develop or Performance. The invoice stays a sales conversation. 2 9 1
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 ⚠ unverified | — | 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 Culture Amp
Is Culture Amp European?
No. whats-best.ai classifies Culture Amp as Rest of world.
Where does Culture Amp store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Culture Amp have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Culture Amp?
As of 15 Oct 2026, the panel rates Small Improvements (3/5), Leapsome (2.5/5) and Betterworks (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: Culture Amp alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 1 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Legal entity, 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.
- 66 product facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 8 legal facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 6 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
- 4 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
- 4 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 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 pricing facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 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
- 3 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (14)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.cultureamp.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page www.cultureamp.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.cultureamp.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Terms of service www.cultureamp.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Performance reviews & calibration — found from sitemap www.cultureamp.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Performance reviews & calibration — found from sitemap support.cultureamp.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Goals, OKRs & continuous feedback — found from sitemap www.cultureamp.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Goals, OKRs & continuous feedback — found from sitemap support.cultureamp.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Learning, skills & succession — found from sitemap support.cultureamp.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Learning, skills & succession — found from sitemap www.cultureamp.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Works council, visibility & AI disclosure — found from sitemap www.cultureamp.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Works council, visibility & AI disclosure — found from sitemap support.cultureamp.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 HRIS sync, integrations & data portability — found from sitemap www.cultureamp.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 HRIS sync, integrations & data portability — found from sitemap support.cultureamp.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →