whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Talent Management

Culture Amp

Rest of world 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 Culture Amp Pty Ltd · www.cultureamp.com

Report an error on this page Is this your product? →

Link to this page

Culture Amp: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai Culture Amp: 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.

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

Culture Amp alternatives, European ones first →

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

The Skeptic

Weighted verdict

Has heard "high-performance culture", "bias-free reviews" and "AI-powered growth" from every vendor. Reads for the anonymity threshold behind the anonymous survey, what the AI review summary was built from, whether the "skills engine" is more than a tag list, and whether five years of reviews leave with the customer.

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

Scored by The Skeptic

Panel median The Skeptic 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 Skeptic
Performance reviews & calibration 4 of 5 4 of 5
Goals, OKRs & continuous feedback 3.5 of 5 3.5 of 5
Learning, skills & succession 2.5 of 5 3 of 5
Works council, visibility & AI disclosure 3 of 5 3 of 5
HRIS sync, integrations & data portability 3.5 of 5 3.5 of 5
European sovereignty 1.5 of 5 1.5 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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 Culture Amp? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (14)

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

  1. 1 Vendor homepage www.cultureamp.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Pricing page www.cultureamp.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Privacy policy www.cultureamp.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Terms of service www.cultureamp.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Performance reviews & calibration — found from sitemap www.cultureamp.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Performance reviews & calibration — found from sitemap support.cultureamp.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Goals, OKRs & continuous feedback — found from sitemap www.cultureamp.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Goals, OKRs & continuous feedback — found from sitemap support.cultureamp.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Learning, skills & succession — found from sitemap support.cultureamp.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Learning, skills & succession — found from sitemap www.cultureamp.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  11. 11 Works council, visibility & AI disclosure — found from sitemap www.cultureamp.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  12. 12 Works council, visibility & AI disclosure — found from sitemap support.cultureamp.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  13. 13 HRIS sync, integrations & data portability — found from sitemap www.cultureamp.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  14. 14 HRIS sync, integrations & data portability — found from sitemap support.cultureamp.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →