Talent Management
eloomi
EU origin, foreign-owned Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Dayforce a/s · eloomi.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.
eloomi at a glance
- Vendor
- Dayforce a/s
- 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 eloomi 2/5, the mean of 6 judges. eloomi, founded in Copenhagen and acquired by Dayforce (US/Canada) in 2024, is a learning and development platform with built-in performance management, contracted through Dayforce a/s of Copenhagen. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 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
eloomi, founded in Copenhagen and acquired by Dayforce (US/Canada) in 2024, is a learning and development platform with built-in performance management, contracted through Dayforce a/s of Copenhagen. The bench scores it highest on learning and development, where judges point to skills profiles built on a live taxonomy of more than 75,000 job titles and 30,000 skills, learning paths with completion reporting, a curated content library and LinkedIn Learning; goals and feedback and integrations and portability follow, the latter resting on named links to 40+ HR platforms including SAP, Workday and ADP. The weakest ground is codetermination and privacy and sovereignty: the captured pages describe sentiment analytics over employee data purely as a benefit, the privacy policy is the parent Dayforce's, and no public information was found on hosting location or subprocessors. Persona-weighted totals range from 3.4 to 5.2, no criterion spans more than two points, and pricing transparency scores 0, with cost reachable only by booking a demo or call.
Speaks for it
- Skills profiles for every employee built from a skills survey against a live taxonomy of more than 75,000 job titles and 30,000 skills
- Learning paths with real-time completion reporting, a curated content library and LinkedIn Learning integration anchor the top-scoring criterion
- OKR goals at company, manager and employee level with 1:1s carrying reminders, notetaking and structure suggestions
- Named integrations with 40+ HR/HCM platforms including SAP, Workday and ADP, plus single sign-on and an open access API
- Journeys let HR tailor review workflows by organization, department, team or group with automated scheduling and reminders
Held against it
- Codetermination and privacy scores cluster at 1-3, with no public information on retention, deletion, access logging or anonymity thresholds
- Sentiment analytics over employee data is described purely as a benefit, with no public information on its inputs or an option to disable it
- Sovereignty scores cluster at 1-3: the privacy policy is the parent Dayforce's, with no public information on hosting location or subprocessors
- No public information on a bulk export of the review, goal and feedback history; only learning data sharing via API is described
- No public information on rating scales, calibration views across teams or employee sign-off in reviews, which score 4-5
Best for
- You want an L&D-first platform where skills mapping, curated content and LinkedIn Learning sit beside goals and reviews
- You run OKR-style goals and structured 1:1s and want them tied to the employee profile and a manager dashboard
- You need named, supported integrations with HR platforms such as SAP, Workday, ADP, BambooHR and HiBob
- You want review workflows you can tailor per organization, department or team and run without a consultant
Avoid if
- You must draft a works agreement naming data controls — codetermination and privacy scores cluster at 1-3, with sentiment analytics framed only as a benefit
- You need documented hosting location, data residency or a subprocessor list before signing — sovereignty scores 1-3 and the privacy policy behind the links is the parent Dayforce's
- You rely on exporting your full review, goal and feedback history at contract end — the pages describe only learning data sharing via API
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Performance reviews & calibration | 2.5 of 5 |
| Goals, OKRs & continuous feedback | 3 of 5 |
| Learning, skills & succession | 3 of 5 |
| Works council, visibility & AI disclosure | 1 of 5 |
| HRIS sync, integrations & data portability | 3 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1 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
Journeys lets HR configure review workflows by organization, department, team or group, with automated scheduling and reminders, and the pages state employees see their appraisal on their own page while managers track completion, alongside 360 feedback as structured gathering. We found no public information on configurable rating scales, calibration views across teams, employee sign-off, or a documented rule for what HR, the manager and the employee can each see, so I cannot defend a rating trail back to criteria fixed before the cycle. 2 5 6 8
The Managing Director
The pages show 360 feedback with structured gathering, review workflows I could tailor per department or team via Journeys, reminders, employees able to see their own appraisal, and managers tracking completion — that is a cycle I could run without a consultant. We found no public information on rating scales, calibration across teams, or an employee sign-off step, so I cannot tell whether the yearly conversation lands on criteria fixed in advance. 2 5 6
The People Analyst
Journeys let HR tailor review workflows by organization, department, team or group, with automated scheduling and reminders, employees notified during the appraisal with access to their appraisal, managers able to track completion, and 360 feedback for structured gathering. We found no public information on rating scales, calibration views across teams, or the rules for what the employee, the manager and HR can each see. 2 5 6
The Works Council Member
Journeys let HR tailor review workflows per organisation, department, team or group, with automated scheduling, reminders and 360 feedback, and employees can see their own appraisal on their page. We found no public information on configurable rating scales, employee sign-off, per-employee review history or calibration across teams, and no published rule for what the employee, the manager and HR may each see in a rating. 2 5 6
The HR IT Integrator
Journeys let HR automate and tailor review workflows per organization, department or team, with 360 feedback, automated scheduling and reminders, and employees keeping access to their appraisal on their own page while managers track completion. I found no public information on configurable rating scales, calibration views across teams, or whether review history is retained per employee — and that history is exactly what I would be asked to hand over when a contract ends. 2 5
The Skeptic
Review workflows are configurable by organisation, department or team through Journeys, with automated scheduling, reminders, employee access to their own appraisal, manager completion tracking and 360 feedback. We found no public information on rating scales, calibration views, employee sign-off, or who beyond the manager and employee can see a review, which keeps this below a fully configurable cycle. 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
OKR goals at company, manager and employee level with alignment, easy adjustment, real-time progress tracking, blocker detection, and 1:1s with reminders, notetaking and pre-built structure suggestions, all hanging off the employee profile where feedback lives. We found no public information on goal-change history, private versus shared sections of 1:1 notes, feedback requests to named colleagues, or whether goal attainment feeds the year-end rating, which is what I would need to run a cycle that does not start from memory. 2 5 6 8 12
The Managing Director
OKRs at company, manager and employee level with alignment, one-to-ones carrying reminders, notetaking and suggested structures, goal adjustment tied to those conversations, and real-time progress in a manager dashboard with Teams notifications — that is the visible-goals routine I want. We found no public information on shared versus private parts of one-to-one notes, feedback requests to named colleagues, or how goal and check-in history flows into the review itself. 2 5 6 8
The People Analyst
Goals use an OKR framework at company, manager and employee level with alignment, easy adjustment, real-time progress tracking, blocker alerts, and 1:1s with reminders, notetaking and pre-built structure suggestions, plus manager dashboard reporting on goals and development plans. We found no public information on goal change history, private versus shared parts of 1:1 notes, or how feedback is pulled into the year-end review. 2 6 8 5
The Works Council Member
Objectives and key results run at company, manager and employee level with alignment to the company vision, goal adjustment, real-time progress reporting, blocker detection, and 1:1s carrying reminders, notetaking and structure suggestions that feed the review conversation. We found no public information on goal change history or on which parts of a 1:1 note stay private — a point that must be settled before anyone writes candidly. 2 5 6 8
The HR IT Integrator
OKR-style goals at company, manager and employee level with alignment, 1:1s with reminders, notetaking and structure suggestions, goal adjustment tied to those conversations, and real-time progress tracking with early blocker detection, all connected to the employee profile where feedback and check-ins begin. I found no public information on goal change history, private versus shared 1:1 notes, or feedback requests to named colleagues, so I cannot confirm the year-end review draws on a logged record rather than memory. 2 5 8
The Skeptic
OKRs run at company, manager and employee level with alignment, real-time progress tracking and early blocker detection, and 1:1s carry reminders, notetaking and pre-built structure; goals, feedback and check-ins all begin on the employee profile. We found no public information on logged goal-change history, private versus shared note parts, feedback requests to named colleagues, or whether goal attainment feeds the year-end rating. 5 6 8
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
Skills profiles per employee built from a live taxonomy of more than 30,000 skills and 75,000 job titles, gap highlighting and training opportunities across the organization, learning paths with real-time completion reporting, a curated content library and a LinkedIn Learning integration, connected to performance through goals. We found no public information on talent reviews, succession plans per key role, career paths per role, or exportable training records, so the growing-people story stops at the skills map. 9 10 13
The Managing Director
Skills profiles built from a survey against a live taxonomy of more than 75,000 job titles and 30,000 skills, gaps highlighted with learning paths, completion reporting and LinkedIn Learning content — the development engine looks genuinely strong. We found no public information on career paths per role, mandatory training, talent reviews or succession planning, so growing my leadership bench would rest on the review side, which is thinner. 9 10 13
The People Analyst
This is the product's centre: skills profiles per employee built from a skills survey against a live taxonomy of more than 30,000 skills, gaps and training opportunities highlighted, learning paths with recommended courses for needed skills, completion and training progress reports, and LinkedIn Learning integration. We found no public information on talent reviews such as a nine-box, succession plans per key role, internal mobility against open positions, or exportable certificates and training records. 9 10 13
The Works Council Member
Skills profiles per employee with gaps shown against a taxonomy of more than 30,000 skills, learning paths with completion reporting, a curated content library and a named LinkedIn Learning connection make the learning half substantial. We found no public information on mandatory training, talent reviews such as a nine-box, succession plans per key role, or internal mobility against open positions. 9 10 13
The HR IT Integrator
This is the core of the product: skills profiles per employee from a live taxonomy of 30,000+ skills and 75,000+ job titles, gaps and training opportunities highlighted, learning paths with real-time completion reporting, a curated content library and LinkedIn Learning integration feeding learning plans. I found no public information on talent reviews such as a nine-box, succession plans per key role, or internal mobility against open positions — development is measured, but nothing on who replaces whom. 9 10 13
The Skeptic
Skills profiles come from a skills survey against a taxonomy of more than 75,000 job titles and 30,000 skills, with gap highlighting, learning paths, completion reporting, curated content and LinkedIn Learning. We found no public information on talent reviews, succession planning, internal mobility, mandatory training, SCORM or xAPI support, or exportable training records. 9 10 13
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 captured pages say employees can access their own appraisal and managers can see progress and completion, and sentiment analytics over employee data is described only as a benefit of the performance product. We found no public information on anonymity thresholds for feedback or surveys, configurable retention or deletion of review data, access logging, or the inputs and on/off control of the analytics features, which leaves me nothing to draft a works agreement from. 2 5 11
The Managing Director
For a works agreement I have almost nothing to point at: the only visibility statement is that employees can see their own appraisal, and sentiment analytics over employee data is described purely as a benefit — we found no public information on its inputs or how to switch it off. We also found no public information on anonymity thresholds, retention or deletion of review data, or access logging, and the privacy policy behind the links is the US parent's. 2 3 5
The People Analyst
We found no public information on visibility or access rules per role, retention and deletion of review data, access logging, or a minimum group size for anonymous results. Sentiment analytics on employee data is described only as a benefit, with no statement of its inputs or an option to disable it; a trust and security center and the parent's privacy policy exist but the captured pages state no specifics a works agreement could rely on. 2 3 11
The Works Council Member
The captured pages present sentiment analytics on employee conversations purely as a benefit, with nothing on what data it processes, where, or how to switch it off — exactly the kind of feature a works agreement must name and control. Beyond employees seeing their own appraisal and managers seeing completion status, we found no public information on minimum group sizes for anonymous results, retention or deletion of review data, access logging or an EU AI Act position, and the published privacy policy is the parent Dayforce one. 2 3 5
The HR IT Integrator
The only visibility statement I found is that employees have access to their appraisal on their page and managers can see its progress; beyond a trust and security center link, I found no public information on role-based visibility rules, anonymity thresholds, retention or deletion of review data, or access logging. Sentiment analytics on employee conversations is presented as a benefit with nothing on its inputs or an option to disable it — thin ground for a works agreement. 2 5 11
The Skeptic
The only visibility statements captured are that employees can access their own appraisal and managers track completion; we found no public information on a minimum group size for anonymous survey or feedback results, retention and deletion settings, or access logging. Sentiment analytics over employee conversations is described purely as a benefit, and we found no public information on what it processes or whether it can be switched off. 2 5 10
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
Forty-plus named HR and HCM platforms including SAP, Workday, ADP, Dayforce, BambooHR and HiBob, single sign-on, automated user provisioning, a Microsoft Teams app and an open access API backed by dedicated integration support. We found no public information on SCIM provisioning by name, webhooks, published API limits, or a bulk export of the complete review, goal and feedback history; only learning data sharing via the learning API is described, so what leaves with the customer at contract end is unclear. 10 12 13
The Managing Director
Forty-plus HR platforms including SAP, Workday and Dayforce, single sign-on, automated user provisioning, a Microsoft Teams app and an open API for custom integrations with dedicated support — the plumbing to my system of record is there. We found no public information on org-chart and manager-relation sync, webhooks, API limits, or any export of the review, goal and feedback history; only learning data is spoken of as shareable. 10 12 13
The People Analyst
Named integration with 40+ HR/HCM platforms including SAP, Workday, ADP, BambooHR, Dayforce, Paycor and HiBob, single sign-on, automated user provisioning, a Microsoft Teams app, and an open access API that can share learning data with other systems. We found no public information on export of the review, goal and feedback history, on published API limits, on SCIM provisioning or webhooks, or on whether org-chart and manager relations sync. 10 13 12
The Works Council Member
More than forty HR platform integrations with named systems including SAP, Workday and ADP, single sign-on, automated user provisioning, a Microsoft Teams app and an open API for custom integrations. We found no public information on a structured bulk export of review, goal and feedback history, on SCIM provisioning, webhooks or published API limits — what leaves with the customer at contract end stays unanswered. 10 12 13
The HR IT Integrator
Forty-plus named HR/HCM integrations including SAP, Workday, BambooHR, HiBob and Dayforce, single sign-on, automated user provisioning, a Microsoft Teams app, and an open access API plus a learning API for reporting learning data to other systems. I found no public information on org-chart and manager-relation sync, SCIM as a named standard, webhooks, published API limits, or any export of the review, goal and feedback history — and as the one asked for that data at contract end, the silence on export is the deciding gap. 10 12 13
The Skeptic
Integrations are broad and named: forty-plus HR platforms including SAP, Workday, ADP and Dayforce, single sign-on, automated user provisioning, a Microsoft Teams app, an open API and a learning data API. We found no public information on SCIM by name, webhooks, published API limits, org-chart and manager-relation sync, or an export of the review, goal and feedback history. 10 12 13
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 terms name Dayforce a/s of Copenhagen as the contracting entity, but the company was acquired in 2024 by the US/Canada Dayforce group and the privacy policy is the parent's. We found no public information on where performance, feedback and analytics data is hosted, on any subprocessor list, or on where the sentiment analytics run, and for four hundred people who did not choose this vendor that is the whole question. 1 3 4
The Managing Director
The terms name Dayforce a/s in Copenhagen, but the company is owned by the US/Canadian Dayforce group and the privacy policy is the parent's. We found no public information on hosting location, data residency, subprocessors, or where the sentiment analytics run — for judgement data on sixty people who never chose this vendor, that is not enough to sign. 2 3 4
The People Analyst
The legal terms name Dayforce a/s of Copenhagen as the contracting entity, but the privacy policy is the US/Canada parent's and we found no public information on hosting location, a subprocessor list including any AI providers, or where the sentiment analytics processes employee data. For judgements about people who did not choose the vendor, that silence is most of the answer. 3 4 2
The Works Council Member
eloomi is a Dayforce company under US/Canadian ownership and the published privacy policy is the parent's; we found no public information on where performance, feedback and survey data is hosted, on the subprocessors including any AI providers, or on where the sentiment analytics run. The terms name a Copenhagen entity, which is the only European foothold the captured material shows. 3 4 10
The HR IT Integrator
The terms name Dayforce a/s in Copenhagen as the contracting entity, but the pages present eloomi as a Dayforce company with the parent's privacy policy, and I found no public information on hosting location, data residency, or a subprocessor list — including for the sentiment analytics that processes employee data. Nothing here lets me tell a works council where performance and feedback data actually lives. 2 3 10
The Skeptic
The captured terms name Dayforce a/s in Copenhagen as the contracting entity, but the company has been US/Canada-owned since 2024 and the privacy policy is the parent Dayforce's; we found no public information on hosting location, on any subprocessor list, or on where the sentiment analytics run. Unnamed subprocessors and unstated residency leave the chain unauditable for employee performance data. 3 4 10
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
Across the captured pages, including the homepage, we found no public information on prices, the pricing basis, which modules sit in which tier, add-on charges or minimum term. The cost is only reachable through a demo booking or a call-booking prompt, so no buyer can compute the annual invoice from public pages. 1 6 10
The Managing Director
The captured pages show no public prices — every path routes through booking a demo or a call, so I cannot begin to compute an annual cost. Implementation in four to six weeks is stated, but no fee, tier, pricing basis, minimum term or module price appears. 1 6 10 11
The People Analyst
The captured pages show no prices at all: the modules are presented with demo-booking and call-booking invitations and nothing on the pricing basis, which modules sit in which tier, add-ons, or minimum term. A buyer cannot compute any part of the annual cost from these pages. 1 6 11
The Works Council Member
We found no public prices at all — no pricing basis, no module or tier prices, no minimum term or headcount — and every path on the captured pages leads to booking a demo or a call. A buyer cannot begin to compute the annual cost from public material. 1 6 11
The HR IT Integrator
I found no public information on prices, the pricing basis, which modules sit in which tier, or the minimum term anywhere on the captured pages — the calls to action are to book a demo or a call, so every module is a sales conversation and the annual invoice is not computable. 1 11
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about eloomi
Is eloomi European?
Partly. whats-best.ai classifies eloomi as EU origin, foreign-owned.
Where does eloomi store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does eloomi have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to eloomi?
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: eloomi alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 13 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 — Ownership. 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.
- We found no public information on pricing on the pages we read (eloomi.com, eloomi.com/product/performance-management, dayforce.com/privacy, eloomi.com/legal, eloomi.com/resource/article/design-define-deliver-your-ideal-performance-reviews, eloomi.com/resource/article/goals-performance-review-examples and 7 more). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- 34 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
- 7 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
- 3 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
- 2 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
- 1 compliance fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 subprocessors 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 (13)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage eloomi.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Performance management eloomi.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy (parent Dayforce) www.dayforce.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Legal overview eloomi.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Performance reviews & calibration — found from sitemap eloomi.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Performance reviews & calibration — found from sitemap eloomi.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Goals, OKRs & continuous feedback — found from sitemap eloomi.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Goals, OKRs & continuous feedback — found from sitemap eloomi.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Learning, skills & succession — found from sitemap eloomi.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Learning, skills & succession — found from sitemap eloomi.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Works council, visibility & AI disclosure — found from sitemap eloomi.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 HRIS sync, integrations & data portability — found from sitemap eloomi.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 HRIS sync, integrations & data portability — found from sitemap eloomi.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →