Talent Management
Docebo
EU origin, foreign-owned Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Docebo Inc. · www.docebo.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.
Docebo at a glance
- Vendor
- Docebo Inc.
- 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 Docebo 1.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Docebo is a learning platform with a skills layer, and the scoring follows that shape. 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
Docebo is a learning platform with a skills layer, and the scoring follows that shape. Learning and development is its clear strength, at 7 to 8: SCORM 1.2 and 2004, Tin Can/xAPI and AICC delivery, a marketplace of over 30,000 courses, certification and compliance tracking, and AI that infers and validates skills from roles, experience, projects and learning activity. The weaknesses are structural. Performance reviews and goals and feedback score 0 to 1 and 0 — we found no public information on review cycles, rating scales, goals, OKRs or check-ins — and sovereignty scores cluster at 0, with the contracting vendor Docebo Inc. headquartered in Toronto and listed on TSX and Nasdaq and no public information on hosting location, an EU contracting entity or the subprocessors behind the AI. Codetermination and privacy at 4 and integrations and portability at 6 show no spread between judges. The spread is narrow everywhere: learning and development moves between 7 and 8 on how heavily the missing talent-review machinery — nine-box views, succession plans per key role, exportable training records — should count.
Speaks for it
- Delivers SCORM 1.2 and 2004, Tin Can/xAPI and AICC content, with a marketplace of over 30,000 courses and certification and compliance tracking
- AI infers, normalises and validates skills from roles, experience, projects and learning activity, and matches people to internal opportunities
- Retention periods are configurable per country through anonymization recipes that run on a daily schedule, with backups isolated until deletion is possible
- The privacy policy states a processor role for customer data and that customer content is not used to train the AI
- Automatic Workday import of users and organisational data, SAML 2.0 single sign-on with Okta, OneLogin and Microsoft Entra ID, and an Enterprise-plan API limit of 100 calls per minute
Held against it
- We found no public information on review cycles, rating scales, goal-setting, OKRs or progress check-ins anywhere in the captured material
- Sovereignty scores cluster at 0: the contracting vendor is Docebo Inc. of Toronto, listed on TSX and Nasdaq, and we found no public information on hosting location, an EU contracting entity or a subprocessor list
- We found no public information on visibility rules per role, access logging, minimum group sizes for anonymous results or a way to switch the AI agents off, and the model providers appear only as unnamed service providers
- Workday is the only named HR system, and we found no public information on SCIM provisioning, webhooks or a bulk export of complete learner histories
- We found no public price figures for the Elevate or Enterprise plans, so an annual invoice cannot be computed from public pages
Best for
- You need a corporate learning platform first — SCORM and xAPI delivery, a large course marketplace, compliance and certification tracking — with a skills layer on top
- Your priority is internal mobility and workforce planning built on inferred and validated skills rather than formal review cycles
- You already run Workday and use Okta, OneLogin or Microsoft Entra ID for single sign-on
- You must set different retention periods per country with automated anonymisation of expired users
Avoid if
- You need performance reviews, goals or continuous feedback in the same platform — these criteria scored 0 to 1 and 0
- Your procurement requires stated EU data residency, a European contracting entity or a published subprocessor list before signing
- Your works council needs published visibility rules, access logging or a way to switch the AI agents off before approving the platform
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Performance reviews & calibration | 0 of 5 |
| Goals, OKRs & continuous feedback | 0 of 5 |
| Learning, skills & succession | 4 of 5 |
| Works council, visibility & AI disclosure | 2 of 5 |
| HRIS sync, integrations & data portability | 3 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 0 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
I found no public information on review cycles, rating scales, self or 360 input, calibration, sign-off, or a per-employee review history — everything captured concerns learning delivery and skills intelligence. If I ran my four-hundred-person cycle on this, the criteria, the trace and the employee-visible record would all have to come from somewhere else. 2 5 6
The Managing Director
Everything captured is about learning and skills; "performance" appears only as a use-case heading about turning skill gaps into performance gains. We found no public information on review cycles, templates, rating scales, calibration or what the employee would see, so there is nothing here to run a yearly conversation on. 2 5
The People Analyst
The captured pages describe a learning platform and a skills intelligence suite; we found no public information on review cycles, rating scales, self, manager or 360-degree input, calibration, or what an employee sees of their record. The nearest thing is a use-case heading about upskilling, reskilling and performance, which is marketing language rather than a review process. 5
The Works Council Member
Nothing in the captured pages describes a review cycle, rating scale, self or manager input, or calibration; the closest mention is "turn skill gaps into performance gains" in a skills context. I found no public information on any review template or rating, so there is nothing here a works agreement could govern. 5 6
The HR IT Integrator
I found no public information on review cycles, templates, rating scales, self or manager input, or calibration; the captured pages describe learning delivery and skills, with performance appearing only as a workforce use case line. Nothing here evidences a structured review process at all. 2 5
The Skeptic
The captured pricing page names exactly two modules, Learning Management and Skills Intelligence, and the only mention of performance is marketing copy about turning skill gaps into performance gains through learning. We found no public information on review cycles, rating scales, calibration, 360° input or what the employee sees of their own record — so this is scored at the bottom by absence. 2 5
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
The pages talk about learning plans, skill gaps and development journeys, but I found no public information on individual or team goals, check-ins, 1:1 agendas or feedback requests. Nothing here would let a year-end review draw on the year rather than start from memory. 5 6
The Managing Director
We found no public information on goals or OKRs, check-ins, shared 1:1 agendas, feedback requests or recognition. The year-end conversation would start from memory — for me that is a non-starter, whatever the learning side offers. 5 6
The People Analyst
We found no public information on goals or OKRs, alignment and cascading, progress check-ins, shared 1:1 agendas, or a feedback and recognition record. The Career Coach agent is described as guiding employees toward next-best roles, which speaks to development, not to managing the work between review cycles. 5
The Works Council Member
No goals, OKRs, progress check-ins, 1:1 agendas or feedback and recognition features appear anywhere in the captured material. Everything this criterion needs would have to live in another product. 5 6
The HR IT Integrator
Nothing captured shows individual or team goals, OKRs, alignment, check-ins, 1:1 agendas or requested feedback. The nearest content is a Career Coach agent and workforce planning at the skills level, which is not goal management feeding a review record. 5 6
The Skeptic
The adjacent products the vendor itself lists are advanced analytics, AI content creation, an AI assistant and roleplay practice — none of it is goals, OKRs or colleague feedback. We found no public information on goal setting, alignment, check-ins, 1:1 agendas or feedback requests, so there is no between-cycles record for a review to draw on. 2 6
Learning, skills & succession
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Growing people rather than only rating them: learning paths or course delivery, a skills or competency framework, career paths and development plans, and talent reviews and succession planning for key roles.
0 — No development features; the product rates people but says nothing about developing them.
3 — A development-plan text field or a link to an external course catalogue, with no skills model and no succession view.
5 — Development plans linked to review outcomes, a configurable competency or skills framework, assigned learning content or integration with a named LMS, and career paths per role.
8 — Skills profiles per employee with gaps against role requirements, learning paths with completion tracking and mandatory training, talent reviews (such as a nine-box) with succession plans per key role, and internal mobility shown against open positions.
10 — Development is planned and measured: skills data maintained and versioned, learning outcomes linked to skills and reviews, succession coverage and risk reported per role, SCORM or xAPI content supported or a named LMS integrated both ways, and certificates and training records exportable.
The Head of HR
This is their home ground: SCORM 1.2/2004, xAPI and AICC delivery, a 30,000-course marketplace with certifications, certification and compliance tracking, and AI-inferred skills profiles with gaps against roles, career paths and internal mobility from the acquired skills intelligence capability. I found no public information on talent reviews such as a nine-box, succession plans per key role, or exportable certificates and training records, which is what keeps development here from being fully planned and measured. 2 5 6
The Managing Director
This is the vendor's home ground: SCORM, xAPI and AICC content, a marketplace of over 30,000 courses with certifications, completion and compliance tracking, and a skills layer where AI infers, normalises and validates skills, builds role and skills frameworks and flags gaps. Career Coach and the Strategic Workforce Planner push toward mobility and readiness; we found no public information on nine-box talent reviews, succession plans per key role, or exportable training records. 2 5 6
The People Analyst
This is the product's centre of gravity and it is genuinely strong: AI infers, normalises and validates skills from roles, experience, projects and learning activity, a Job Architect builds and updates role and skills frameworks, workforce planning is sold on a view of skill gaps, readiness and risk, and learning delivery is deep — SCORM 1.2 and 2004, Tin Can/xAPI and AICC, a marketplace of over 30,000 courses and professional certifications, and certification and compliance tracking. It sits at the level below the top because we found no public information on a nine-box style talent review with succession plans per key role, on versioned skills data, on linking learning outcomes to reviews, or on exporting certificates and training records. 5 6 2
The Works Council Member
The core is real: SCORM 1.2 and 2004, Tin Can/xAPI and AICC content, a marketplace of over 30,000 courses, certification and compliance tracking, and a skills layer that infers and validates skills from roles, experience, projects and learning activity, with career paths and internal mobility matching. I found no public information on talent-review views such as a nine-box, succession plans per key role, or exportable certificates and training records, which keeps it short of the top. 2 5 6
The HR IT Integrator
This is the strongest area on the record: SCORM and xAPI content, a marketplace of over 30,000 courses with certifications, compliance and completion tracking, AI-inferred skills profiles with gaps against roles, career paths and internal mobility matched to opportunities. I found no public information on talent reviews such as a nine-box, succession plans per key role, versioned skills data, or exportable certificates and training records, which holds it below the top band. 2 5 6
The Skeptic
The skills story is more than a tag list: five named AI agents build role and skills frameworks, infer and validate skills from roles, experience, projects and learning activity, and match people to internal opportunities, on top of SCORM 1.2/2004, Tin Can/xAPI and AICC content, a 30,000-course marketplace and certification and compliance tracking. But the succession half of the criterion is marketing adjacency only — we found no public information on talent reviews such as a nine-box, succession plans per key role, versioned skills data or exportable training records, and the development link to review outcomes is moot since no review cycle is evidenced. Sitting between the anchors, with the missing talent-review machinery holding it below the top band. 2 5 6
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
Retention is genuinely configurable — anonymization recipes run on a daily schedule with per-country GDPR retention periods via a lookup table — and the privacy policy states a processor role, deletion with backup isolation, and that customer content is not used to train the AI. But I found no public information on visibility rules per role, on access logging, or on anonymity minima for results, and the AI features are named without their model providers or any stated way to switch them off. 3 7 7
The Managing Director
The privacy policy positions Docebo as a data processor for customer data, keeps information only as long as purposes require with a documented backup-isolation deletion path, states customer content is not used to train the AI, and the anonymization recipes genuinely let retention be set per country with a scheduled purge. But we found no public information on who can see which data by role, minimum group sizes for anonymous results or access logs, the named AI agents are described only as benefits with no switch-off shown, and the model providers behind them are unnamed "service providers". 3 5 7 7
The People Analyst
There is real GDPR machinery here: retention configurable per country through a GDPR retention-periods lookup, automatic anonymisation recipes with a documented fallback of isolating backup copies until deletion is possible, a stated processor role, and a pledge that customer content is not used to train the AI. But the five AI agents are described only as benefits, with no inputs, no disable option and no model provider named, and we found no public information on role-based visibility rules, minimum group sizes for anonymous results, access logging, or documentation aimed at works councils. 3 7
The Works Council Member
The retention side is unusually concrete: retention periods configurable per country, automatic anonymisation of expired users into a separate branch, backups isolated until deletable, and a statement that customer content is not used to train the AI. But I found no public information on visibility rules per role, access logging, or a minimum group size for anonymous results, and the AI agents that infer, validate and coach employee skills — including a Skills Validator working "beyond self-assessment" — are described only as benefits, with no public information on a way to switch them off or on the model provider behind them. 3 5 7 7
The HR IT Integrator
Retention is genuinely configurable, with anonymization recipes driven by per-country GDPR retention periods moving expired users to a dedicated branch, and the AI agents are named alongside a statement that customer content is not used to train the AI. But I found no public information on visibility rules per role for performance data, a minimum group size for anonymous results, access logging, or a per-module switch for the AI features, and the model providers stay unnamed. 3 5 7 7
The Skeptic
There is real tooling here: the privacy policy names the processor role and a deletion path for backups, and the anonymization recipes let retention periods differ per country with daily scheduled runs — more than a confidentiality assurance. But the AI side is described by benefit with the models attributed only to unnamed "service providers", the one AI control is a promise not to train on customer content, and we found no public information on visibility rules per role, a minimum group size for anonymous results, access logging or a per-module switch to turn AI features off — so it lands between the two anchors. 3 7 7
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
SAML single sign-on with Okta, OneLogin and Entra ID, automatic Workday import of users and organizational data, Microsoft Teams among the named integrations, and an API with a published limit of 100 calls per minute on the Enterprise plan. I found no public information on SCIM provisioning, webhooks, or a bulk export of complete histories, and no DACH-common HR system such as Personio or SuccessFactors is named, so the picture sits solidly mid-grade. 2 6 8 9
The Managing Director
Workday sync is properly documented — automatic user import, employee and organisational data, segmentation by geography, department and level — alongside SAML 2.0 SSO with Okta, OneLogin and Microsoft Entra ID, Microsoft Teams among named connectors, and an API with a published limit of 100 calls per minute on the Enterprise plan. But Workday is the only named HR system: we found no public information on Personio, SAP SuccessFactors or HRworks connectors, SCIM provisioning, webhooks, or a bulk export of the complete history. 2 6 8 9
The People Analyst
Over 400 connectors, a Workday integration that automatically imports employee and organisational data and segments by geography, department and level, SAML 2.0 single sign-on with Okta, OneLogin and Microsoft Entra ID, a Microsoft Teams connector, and a published API limit of 100 calls per minute on the Enterprise tier. We found no public information on SCIM provisioning, on a DACH-common HRIS such as Personio, SAP SuccessFactors or HRworks being named, or on a structured export of the full history in a portable format. 2 6 8 9
The Works Council Member
Workday import of users and organisational structure is documented, SAML 2.0 SSO supports Okta, OneLogin and Microsoft Entra ID, Microsoft Teams is among the named integrations, and the Enterprise plan publishes an API limit of 100 calls per minute over a connector claiming more than 400 third-party systems. I found no public information on SCIM provisioning, webhooks, or a bulk export of the complete learner history, and the named HRIS list stops at Workday. 2 6 8 9
The HR IT Integrator
SAML 2.0 single sign-on with Okta, OneLogin and Microsoft Entra ID, automatic Workday import of users and organizational data with segmentation by department and level, a Teams integration, 400+ connectors and an API with a published limit of 100 calls per minute on the Enterprise plan. I found no public information on SCIM provisioning or on a structured bulk export of the full history, only Workday is named as an HR system, and the Enterprise plan caps tool integration at six, so my contract-end take-out is not assured. 2 6 8 9
The Skeptic
The Workday connector is substantive — automatic user import plus employee and organizational data feeding segmentation by geography, department and level — and there is SAML 2.0 with three named identity providers, a Microsoft Teams integration and an API whose published limit is 100 calls per minute on the Enterprise plan. But the portability half collapses on inspection: we found no public information on SCIM provisioning, webhooks, a bulk export of the complete history, or any DACH-common HRIS beyond Workday, and the Enterprise tier caps tool integrations at six. 2 6 8 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 group parent sits in Toronto with TSX and Nasdaq listings, and the captured pages leave hosting, the contracting entity and the subprocessor chain unstated; the privacy policy's AI assistant runs on unnamed "service providers". For people who did not choose this vendor and whose judgements about performance live in it, nothing published supports a European-sovereignty conversation. 2 3
The Managing Director
The group parent is headquartered in Toronto and listed on Nasdaq and the TSX, and we found no public information on hosting location, an EU contracting entity, or a subprocessor list — including the service providers whose AI runs the assistant and Creator. For my employees' data that is nothing I could put in front of a works council. 1 3
The People Analyst
The group parent is headquartered in Toronto and listed on the TSX and Nasdaq, and we found no public information on where performance and learning data is hosted, on an EU contracting entity, or on any subprocessor list — the AI features run on unnamed service providers of unclear location. For judgements about employees who did not choose this vendor, the captured legal notice and privacy policy give a European reader nothing to hold on to. 3 4
The Works Council Member
The contracting vendor is Docebo Inc., headquartered in Toronto and listed on TSX and Nasdaq, the captured pages say nothing about where learner and skills data is hosted, and the AI features run on technologies "provided by our service providers". I found no public information on data residency, the subprocessor list or an EU AI Act position, and the only compliance programme captured is a US FedRAMP platform — thin comfort for employees who did not choose this vendor. 2 3 5
The HR IT Integrator
The captured pages state nothing on hosting location, the contracting entity or a subprocessor list; the AI runs on technologies from unnamed service providers, and the group parent's non-EU headquarters is not confirmed on the vendor's own pages. For employment data on people who did not choose this vendor, nothing in the chain is visible. 3 5
The Skeptic
The group parent sits in Toronto with TSX and Nasdaq listings, hosting is unstated on the captured pages, the subprocessors behind the AI appear only as unnamed "service providers", and the existence of a FedRAMP-authorized federal platform points at US-facing infrastructure. We found no public information on EU hosting as standard, an EU contracting entity, a published subprocessor list or where the AI features run — every element of the bottom anchor is present. 2 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
Two tiers, Elevate and Enterprise, are publicly mapped to feature lists, so the buyer can see which analytics, integration counts and API limits land where. But I found no public price figure at all: no pricing basis, no minimum term, no VAT treatment, no headcount minimum, so the annual invoice cannot be computed from what is published. 2
The Managing Director
The pricing page names the Elevate and Enterprise plans and lists what each includes, but we found no public prices on any captured page — no figures for either plan, and none for the add-ons marketed alongside it such as Creator, the AI assistant, Roleplay and advanced analytics. The annual invoice cannot be worked out from public pages, and the described onboarding with consultation, needs assessment and content migration points to a negotiated engagement on top. 2 6
The People Analyst
The pricing page publishes the module split between Learning Management and Skills Intelligence and which features sit in the Elevate and Enterprise tiers, including the API limit and extended-enterprise domains, but we found no price figures of any kind, no pricing basis, no minimum term and no VAT treatment. An annual invoice is therefore not computable from public pages, and the onboarding process itself is described as starting with a consultation. 2
The Works Council Member
The pricing page names the Elevate and Enterprise plans, the Learning Management and Skills Intelligence modules, and even per-plan API limits, but we found no public price figure, no pricing basis per learner, and no minimum term or VAT treatment. The annual cost is a sales conversation. 2
The HR IT Integrator
The pricing page names two tiers, Elevate and Enterprise, and lists their features, but we found no public price figures, no pricing basis such as per active user, no minimum term and no VAT treatment; advanced analytics, Creator, the AI assistant and Roleplay appear as separate products without prices. The annual invoice is not computable from public pages. 2 6
The Skeptic
The pricing page does publish a tier structure with its inclusions — Elevate and Enterprise with their feature lists — so a buyer can see which capabilities sit where. But no price figure, pricing basis, minimum term, headcount minimum or VAT treatment appears anywhere in the captured evidence, and the Skills Intelligence module is named without a price; the annual invoice is not computable from what is public. 2 6
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 | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Docebo
Is Docebo European?
Partly. whats-best.ai classifies Docebo as EU origin, foreign-owned.
Where does Docebo store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Docebo have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Docebo?
As of 15 Oct 2026, the panel rates Culture Amp (3/5), Small Improvements (3/5) and Leapsome (2.5/5) highest among the other 15 Talent Management products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is Small Improvements (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Docebo 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. 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.
- 33 product facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 4 compliance facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 integrations facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 hosting 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
- 1 pricing fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 support 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 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is 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 (9)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.docebo.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page www.docebo.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.docebo.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Legal notice www.docebo.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Learning, skills & succession — found from sitemap www.docebo.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Learning, skills & succession — found from sitemap www.docebo.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Works council, visibility & AI disclosure — found from sitemap developer.docebo.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 HRIS sync, integrations & data portability — found from sitemap www.docebo.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 HRIS sync, integrations & data portability — found from sitemap www.docebo.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →