Talent Management
Lattice
Rest of world Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 1 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Degree, Inc. · lattice.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.
Lattice at a glance
- Vendor
- Degree, Inc.
- Headquarters
- Incorporated in United States source, captured 28 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 28 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 28 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Lattice 2.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Lattice is a modular talent management suite from Degree, Inc. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 1 Oct 2026 to 28 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 29 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Lattice is a modular talent management suite from Degree, Inc. of San Francisco. The bench scores it highest on goals and feedback and on learning and development, each clustering at 6, with performance reviews at 5-6 and pricing transparency at 6-7: every module carries a public price — Performance $10, Goals & OKRs $8, Engagement $4 and Foundations $13 seat/month, with Grow +$4 and Compensation +$6 seat/month as add-ons — and Analytics is included in all base products, which the Head of HR called enough to budget a module mix without a sales call. The weak flank is consistent: sovereignty at 2-3 and codetermination and privacy at 2-3, because the privacy policy names Degree, Inc. as controller for EEA, UK and Swiss residents and states personal information may be transferred to and processed in the United States, while data residency, ownership and subprocessor exposure are unknown. Integrations and portability span the widest range at 2-4: the People Analyst credits the MCP server that lets ChatGPT or Claude pull permission-filtered feedback, while the Skeptic scores 2 because no specific HRIS is named.
Speaks for it
- Every module carries a public price on a seat/month basis — Performance $10, Goals & OKRs $8, Engagement $4, Foundations $13, with Grow +$4 and Compensation +$6 as add-ons — and Analytics is included in all base products.
- Review cycles are configurable (annual, quarterly, project-based or automated) with templates, workflows, calibration dashboards and five rating-scale types including custom.
- 1:1s, weekly updates and real-time feedback ship as Manager Tools included with Performance, Goals & OKRs and Engagement.
- Grow lists competencies, individual development plans and career tracks, and the Performance module includes talent reviews, promotions and succession planning.
- An AI draft assembles each employee's goals, feedback, updates and review history into a first draft of the review.
Held against it
- The privacy policy names Degree, Inc. of San Francisco as controller for EEA, UK and Swiss residents and states personal information may be transferred to and processed in the United States, with data residency, ownership and subprocessor exposure unknown.
- The captured pages name no specific HRIS — only Salesforce and JIRA integrations are named — and we found no public information on SSO, SCIM provisioning or a documented API.
- We found no public information on a bulk export of the complete review, goal and feedback history when a contract ends.
- We found no public information on anonymity thresholds for survey results, per-role visibility rules for review data, access logging, or an administrator switch for the AI features.
- Minimum spend, billing currency and implementation fees appear as FAQ questions without answers on the captured pages, no price is published for the AI features, and Enterprise pricing is a custom quote.
Best for
- You want to price a modular mix yourself — public per-seat prices and Analytics included in all base products let you budget a configuration without a sales call.
- You run recurring review cycles over cascading goals, 1:1s and weekly updates and want review drafts grounded in the stored record rather than memory.
- You want competencies, development plans, career tracks and succession planning inside one suite.
Avoid if
- You need EU data residency or a verifiable European processing chain before signing.
- You must conclude a works agreement first and need documented visibility rules, anonymity thresholds for survey results, or an administrator switch for the AI features.
- Your HR IT rollout requires a named HRIS with org-chart sync, SSO and SCIM provisioning.
- You need a guaranteed bulk export of the review, goal and feedback history at contract end.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Performance reviews & calibration | 3 of 5 |
| Goals, OKRs & continuous feedback | 3 of 5 |
| Learning, skills & succession | 3 of 5 |
| Works council, visibility & AI disclosure | 1.5 of 5 |
| HRIS sync, integrations & data portability | 1.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 3 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 performance reviews; the product does not run review cycles.
3 — Review templates with self and manager input, run as a cycle per employee.
5 — Configurable review cycles, questions and rating scales, self, manager and peer or 360° input, 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, employee sign-off or acknowledgement, 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
Review cycles are configurable — annual, quarterly, project-based or automated — with five rating-scale types including custom scales, templates, workflows and dashboards for calibration, and mid-cycle adjustments. The AI draft feature draws on a stored review history per employee, which is the defence trail I need. We found no public information on self, manager, peer or 360 input, employee sign-off or acknowledgement, or a documented rule for what the employee, manager and HR can each see. 3 7 2 9
The Managing Director
Templates, workflows and dashboards to design and launch cycles, mid-cycle adjustments, automatic rules, calibration meetings to catch manager bias, and configurable scales from five-point to BARS — that is a review engine my sixty-person company could run without a consultant. I found no public information on self, manager and 360 reviewer selection, rating distributions across teams, employee sign-off, or who may see which rating, so I stop short of calling the cycle auditable. 6 2 2 3 7
The People Analyst
Reviews run as configurable cycles — annual, quarterly, project-based or automated — with templates, workflows, dashboards, mid-cycle adjustments and calibration, and rating scales spanning five-point, Likert, BARS, graphic and custom; the Performance module also names Talent Reviews, Promotions and PIPs. Review drafts pull together goals, feedback, updates and review history, so the record feeds the cycle rather than memory. We found no public information on 360° reviewer selection, calibration views with rating distributions, employee sign-off, or documented rules for who sees review data. 3 2 7 9
The Works Council Member
Review cycles are configurable — annual, quarterly, project-based or automated — with rating scales from five-point and Likert to BARS and custom, templates and workflows, mid-cycle adjustments and calibration dashboards, and a prompt page even shows review history being pulled into a draft. But we found no public information on self, manager or 360° input configuration, employee sign-off, or a documented rule for what the employee, the manager and HR can each see — the part I cannot sign off without. 3 7 9 3
The HR IT Integrator
Configurable cycles (annual, quarterly, project-based, automated), templates, workflows, dashboards with mid-cycle adjustments and calibration, and five configurable rating-scale types including numeric and qualitative are documented, with calibration a shipped Performance feature and an AI draft pulling goals, feedback, updates and review history into the review. I found no public information on peer or 360° reviewer selection, rating-distribution views across teams, employee sign-off, or a documented rule for who sees what. 3 7 2 9
The Skeptic
The review machinery is documented and configurable: annual to automated cycles, templates and workflows with mid-cycle adjustments, calibration dashboards, five rating-scale types including custom, and a per-employee review history the AI draft prompt draws on. What the captured pages do not show is the rest of the loop — 360 reviewer selection, cross-team rating distributions, employee sign-off, or any rule for who sees what. 3 7 2 9
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 progress tracking, and feedback or recognition shared between colleagues.
5 — Goals or OKRs at company, team and individual level with alignment, check-ins or 1:1 meetings with shared agendas, and feedback that can be requested and referenced in the review.
8 — Goal or OKR 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 pulled into the next review, and check-ins from Microsoft Teams or Slack.
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
Cascading goals with progress updates and reminder notifications sit next to 1:1s with notes and action items, weekly Updates, and feedback that employees can request from colleagues. The prompt library pulls goals, feedback, updates and review history into a first draft of the performance review — exactly the continuity between cycles I insist on. We found no public information on goal change history, dependencies or confidence tracking, private versus shared parts of 1:1 notes, or check-ins from Microsoft Teams or Slack. 2 1 9 9 9
The Managing Director
Cascading goals with progress updates and reminders, 1:1s, weekly updates and feedback are included with the products I would buy, and the review draft pulls an employee's goals, feedback, updates and review history into a first draft — a prepared yearly conversation rather than memory. We found no public information on goal dependencies or confidence tracking, logged goal changes, private versus shared parts of 1:1 notes, or check-ins from Teams or Slack. 2 9 9 1 2
The People Analyst
Cascading goals with progress updates, configurable goal settings and Salesforce and JIRA integrations sit alongside 1:1s, weekly updates and feedback bundled as Manager Tools with Performance, Goals & OKRs or Engagement. Feedback can be requested from named colleagues, prompts prepare 1:1s from goals, updates and permitted feedback, and an evidence-backed review draft assembles those signals the moment a review opens. We found no public information on goal dependencies or confidence tracking, logged goal history, private versus shared parts of 1:1 notes, or check-ins from Microsoft Teams or Slack. 2 2 9 3
The Works Council Member
Cascading goals with progress updates, 1:1s, weekly updates and real-time feedback are documented, and the prompt library pulls goals, feedback and updates into the review draft, so the year-end judgement draws on the record rather than memory. We found no public information on goal-change history, private versus shared parts of 1:1 notes, or check-ins from Microsoft Teams or Slack. 2 9 1
The HR IT Integrator
Cascading goals with progress updates are listed features, 1:1s, Weekly Updates and real-time feedback ship as Manager Tools with the base products, and prompts document requesting feedback from named colleagues and pulling 1:1 notes, action items, goals and updates together. A prompt-library draft draws goals, feedback, updates and review history into the review so it does not start from memory; I found no public information on goal dependencies, confidence tracking, logged goal changes, or check-ins from Microsoft Teams or Slack. 2 9 3
The Skeptic
Cascading goals with progress updates and reminders, 1:1s, weekly updates and shareable feedback are priced and described, and the prompt library shows goals, feedback and updates being pulled into the review draft instead of left to memory. We found no public information on goal-change history, dependencies and confidence tracking, private versus shared 1:1 sections, or check-ins from Microsoft Teams or Slack. 2 1 9
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 and does nothing to develop them.
3 — Development plans per employee with goals or actions, or courses assigned from a catalogue.
5 — Development plans linked to review outcomes, a skills or competency framework, and learning content assigned in the product or through a named LMS integration.
8 — Skills profiles per employee with gaps against role requirements, career paths per role, learning paths with completion tracking and mandatory training, talent reviews (such as a nine-box) with succession plans per key role, and internal mobility shown against open positions.
10 — Development is planned and measured: skills data maintained and versioned, learning outcomes linked to skills and reviews, succession coverage and risk reported per role, SCORM or xAPI content supported or a named LMS integrated both ways, and certificates and training records exportable.
The Head of HR
The Grow module lists Competencies, IDPs and Career Tracks, and the Performance module names Talent Reviews and Succession Planning, with a dedicated succession planning tour behind a demo form. That covers development plans, a competency framework, career paths and succession in one place. We found no public information on learning content or a named LMS integration, skills profiles with gaps against role requirements, learning paths with completion tracking, or internal mobility against open positions. 2 10 1
The Managing Director
Grow brings competencies, individual development plans, career tracks and AI-suggested growth areas at + $4 seat/month, and Performance lists succession planning, promotions and talent reviews — real development, not just rating. We found no public information on learning paths, a course catalogue or an LMS integration, skills-gap profiles against role requirements, or internal mobility against open positions. 10 2 1 2
The People Analyst
Grow delivers competencies, individual development plans, career tracks and AI-powered growth areas; succession plans are created and managed to strengthen the talent bench, Talent Reviews sit in the Performance module, and a new AI skills library is listed. I value the career tracks and the succession bench, but the bench is not measured: we found no public information on skills profiles with gaps against role requirements, learning paths with completion tracking and mandatory training, internal mobility against open positions, or exportable training records. 2 10 1 1
The Works Council Member
Grow lists competencies, individual development plans and career tracks, and Performance includes talent reviews, promotions and succession plans the captured pages describe. We found no public information on learning content, learning paths, completion tracking or a named LMS integration — the growing half of development is unevidenced. 2 10 1
The HR IT Integrator
Grow lists Competencies, individual development plans, Career Tracks, 1:1 integration and AI-powered growth areas, Performance ships Talent Reviews and Succession Planning, and the succession-planning tour shows plans created and managed to strengthen the talent bench. I found no public information on skills-gap analysis against role requirements, learning paths with completion tracking, LMS or SCORM support, or internal mobility against open positions. 2 10 1
The Skeptic
Grow ships competencies, individual development plans and career tracks, the Performance tier lists talent reviews, and succession planning gets its own tour page. The skills library, though, is a menu label marked NEW, and we found no public information on learning content, completion tracking, skills gaps against role requirements, or any LMS integration. 2 1 10
Works council, visibility & AI disclosure
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What the employer can put in a works agreement (BetrVG § 87 (1) no. 6, § 94): 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 — No access model: review and feedback data are open to every user of the account.
3 — Role-based access to review data, and anonymous surveys or feedback offered with a confidentiality statement.
5 — Visibility rules per role documented, a minimum group size for anonymous results stated, and AI features described by what they do with an option for the admin to switch them off.
8 — Field-level permissions and private versus shared notes stated, a configurable anonymity threshold, access to review data logged, retention or deletion configurable per data type, each AI feature named with its inputs and the model provider, 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
What I can put in front of a works council is thin: a prompt that fetches "feedback I'm permitted to view" and a general statement about data encryption and access controls at a Security Center. The AI features are described by what they do — an AI agent, evidence-backed review drafts, AI analysis of usage, feedback and surveys — and the privacy policy states Lattice does not engage in automated decision making, but we found no public information on an administrator switch to turn AI features off, the model providers behind them, visibility rules per role, minimum group sizes for anonymous results, access logging, or retention configurable per data type. 9 3 4 4
The Managing Director
The AI features are named and described by what they do — review drafts grounded in talent data, an agent answering career and policy questions, AI analysis of feedback — and the privacy policy states there is no automated decision-making, retention only as long as necessary, and deletion on a verified request. For a works agreement I need specifics, and we found no public information on anonymity thresholds for surveys, access logging, per-role visibility rules for review data, an admin switch for the AI features, or works council documentation. 4 9 3 3 4
The People Analyst
Access controls limit sensitive performance data to authorized personnel and the AI prompts reference only feedback the user is permitted to view, which implies a permission model; a data protection officer contact is published and the policy states no automated decision-making. AI features are named and described — AI Overview, AI Agent, survey analysis, evidence-backed review drafts — but we found no public information on minimum group sizes for anonymous results, access logging, configurable retention per data type, the model providers behind the AI, an administrator switch to disable AI, or documentation aimed at works councils. 3 9 4 1
The Works Council Member
The AI features are at least named and described — AI Overview, AI Agent, prompt library, and a draft that compiles months of colleague signals the moment a review is opened — and the vendor states it engages in no automated decision-making; separately, an MCP server can send 1:1 notes and permitted feedback out to ChatGPT or Claude. For a works agreement, though, we found no public information on a minimum group size for anonymous survey results, per-role visibility rules, configurable retention per data type, an admin switch for the AI features, or documentation aimed at works councils. 3 7 4 9
The HR IT Integrator
A privacy policy exists with a named DPO, an EU representative in Dublin and Standard Contractual Clauses, states no automated decision making, and describes the AI features by what they do (feedback analysis in seconds, evidence-backed review drafts), with one prompt's "feedback I'm permitted to view" the only hint of an in-product permission model. That policy states it does not apply to data processed on customers' behalf — exactly the employee data a works agreement covers — and I found no public information on documented visibility rules per role, minimum group sizes for anonymous survey results, access logging, an admin switch for the AI features, or works-council materials. 4 4 8 9
The Skeptic
The AI review draft discloses its inputs — goals, feedback, updates and review history — the MCP prompt respects permission-filtered feedback, and the privacy policy states no automated decision-making, but retention is a single keep-as-long-as-necessary clause. For everything a works council would ask — minimum group size for survey results, visibility rules per role, access logging, the model provider behind the AI, an admin switch for the AI features — we found no public information. 4 9 4 4
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, no import and no export; employees are maintained by hand and the history stays in the product.
3 — Employees imported by CSV or synced from one HR system, and reviews exported as PDF or spreadsheet.
5 — Maintained sync with named HR systems (e.g. Personio, SAP SuccessFactors, HRworks, BambooHR), SSO, and a documented API or a structured export of review and goal data.
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
The site advertises connections to "your favorite HRIS, productivity, and communication tools" and names Salesforce and Jira integrations for Goals & OKRs, plus an MCP bridge that lets external assistants such as ChatGPT or Claude reach into Lattice. We found no public information on named HR systems with org-chart and manager-relations sync, single sign-on, SCIM provisioning, a documented API with published limits, or export of the complete review, goal and feedback history. 1 2 9
The Managing Director
The site promises connections to HRIS, productivity and communication tools, names Salesforce and JIRA integrations for goals, and the MCP server lets an outside AI assistant reach into Lattice with permission-filtered feedback. We found no public information on named HR systems with org-chart sync, SSO or SCIM, a documented API, or export of the review, goal and feedback history — what leaves with me at the end is the open question. 1 2 2 1
The People Analyst
Lattice advertises connections with HRIS, productivity and communication tools to keep data flowing, names Salesforce and JIRA integrations for goals, and an MCP server lets outside AI assistants such as ChatGPT and Claude pull 1:1 notes, action items, active goals, updates and permitted feedback. No HRIS is named, and we found no public information on SSO, SCIM provisioning, a documented API with published limits, or a bulk export of the complete review, goal and feedback history. 1 2 9 9
The Works Council Member
The vendor advertises connections to "your favorite HRIS, productivity, and communication tools" without naming a single HR system, and names Salesforce and Jira integrations on the goals side. We found no public information on SSO, SCIM provisioning, a documented API, or an export of the full review, goal and feedback history, so what leaves with the customer at contract end is untested. 1 2 9
The HR IT Integrator
The homepage promises connection to "your favorite HRIS, productivity, and communication tools", the pricing page names Salesforce and Jira integrations, and the MCP server lets an external assistant pull 1:1 notes, action items, active goals, updates and permission-filtered feedback. The captured pages name no specific HR system, and I found no public information on org-chart or manager-relation sync, SSO, SCIM provisioning, a documented API with published limits, or any bulk export of the review, goal and feedback history — what I will be asked for when the contract ends. 1 2 9
The Skeptic
HRIS connectivity is one marketing line — connect Lattice with your favorite HRIS — with not a single HR system named on the captured pages; the named integrations are Salesforce and JIRA for goals. We found no public information on SSO, SCIM provisioning, a documented API, or any export of the review, goal and feedback history, which matters when five years of reviews should leave with the customer. 1 2 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 — Proven non-EU throughout: non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting outside the EU, and no data processing agreement offered.
3 — A privacy policy and a data processing agreement exist, while an EU contracting entity and EU hosting are not shown, or EU hosting is an option under a non-EU contracting entity.
5 — EU hosting stated (as standard or selectable) and an EU contracting entity or EU representative, with a data processing agreement; parts of the chain such as AI summaries, email, analytics or support may run outside the EU.
8 — EU hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, subprocessor list published with locations 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 privacy policy names Degree, Inc., doing business as Lattice, in San Francisco as the controller, appoints an EU representative in Dublin and a Data Protection Officer, and describes Standard Contractual Clauses for transfers from the EEA, UK and Switzerland. The same policy contemplates personal information being transferred to and processed in the United States and other countries where the vendor or its providers operate. We found no public information on EU hosting for customer performance data, a data processing agreement, or a subprocessor list — including any AI providers behind the review drafts. 4 4 4
The Managing Director
Degree, Inc. of San Francisco is the contracting entity and the privacy policy says personal information may be transferred to and processed in the United States, with Standard Contractual Clauses, a Dublin EU representative and a DPO mailbox for EEA residents. We found no public information on EU hosting, an EU contracting entity, or a published subprocessor list with locations, so my people's data rides a US chain with GDPR paperwork attached. 4 4 4
The People Analyst
Degree, Inc., headquartered in San Francisco, is the controller for EEA, UK and Swiss residents, and its policy says personal information may be transferred to and processed in the United States and in any other country where Lattice, its affiliates or its service providers maintain facilities. The EU-facing gestures are an EU representative in Dublin, a data protection officer email and Standard Contractual Clauses; no EU hosting is shown, and we found no public information on the subprocessor list with locations, the AI providers behind the summaries, or a data processing agreement covering employee performance data. 4 4 4
The Works Council Member
Degree, Inc., doing business as Lattice, is the contracting entity headquartered in San Francisco, and personal information may be transferred to and processed in the United States; an EU representative in Dublin and Standard Contractual Clauses for the EEA, UK and Switzerland are stated. We found no public information on EU hosting, ownership, or subprocessor locations including the AI providers — for data about people who did not choose this vendor, that is an exposure. 4 4 4
The HR IT Integrator
The privacy policy names Degree, Inc. of San Francisco as controller for EEA users, gives a San Francisco postal address, and states personal information may be processed in the United States and any other country where Lattice or its providers operate, with Standard Contractual Clauses carrying EEA transfers. A DPO contact and an EU representative exist, but hosting location for customer data, the subprocessor list including any AI providers, and a data processing agreement are not shown publicly, so the chain cannot be verified as European. 4 4 4
The Skeptic
Even for EEA residents the controller is Degree, Inc. of San Francisco, and personal information may be transferred to and processed in the United States; an EU representative in Dublin, Standard Contractual Clauses and a DPO address are the whole European posture shown. We found no public information on data residency for performance data, a data processing agreement, or a subprocessor list covering the AI providers. 4 4 4
Pricing transparency
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 public "from" price or one tier or module priced, with the rest on request.
5 — Prices public for each tier or module with the pricing basis (per employee or user) and the billing period, and the main modules per tier named.
8 — Every module or tier priced publicly with its basis, add-on prices (AI, analytics, surveys) 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
Every standard module carries a public per-seat monthly price — Foundations at $13 seat/month, Performance at $10 seat/month, Goals & OKRs at $8 seat/month, Engagement at $4 seat/month, with + $4 seat/month for Grow and + $6 seat/month for Compensation — the contract can be billed monthly, quarterly or annually, and Analytics comes with all base products. That is enough for me to budget a module mix without a sales call. The enterprise tier is a custom quote, and we found no public information on the amount of any minimum spend, implementation or change-management fees, VAT treatment, or a separate price for the AI features. 2 2
The Managing Director
Every module carries a public price — Performance $10 seat/month, Goals & OKRs $8 seat/month, Engagement $4 seat/month, Grow + $4 seat/month, Compensation + $6 seat/month, Foundations $13 seat/month — with features named per module and Analytics in every base product, so I can price a mix for my headcount myself. The page asks about minimum spend, billing frequency and implementation fees, and we found no public information giving those answers; Enterprise is a custom quote, and we found no public information on AI add-on pricing. 2 2 2
The People Analyst
Every module carries a public price with its basis: Performance at $10 seat/month, Goals & OKRs at $8 seat/month, Engagement at $4 seat/month, Grow at +$4 seat/month, Compensation at +$6 seat/month and Foundations at $13 seat/month, with Analytics included in all base products and Manager Tools bundled into Performance, Goals & OKRs and Engagement. An FAQ raises minimum spend, billing currency and frequency, implementation fees and dedicated human support, but the pages we read give the questions without the answers, Enterprise pricing is a custom quote, and no price is published for the AI features. 2 2 2
The Works Council Member
Every module carries a public seat-per-month price — Performance $10 seat/month, Goals & OKRs $8 seat/month, Engagement $4 seat/month, Foundations $13 seat/month, with Grow + $4 seat/month and Compensation + $6 seat/month as add-ons — and analytics plus the 1:1, feedback and update tools come with the base products. Minimum spend, billing currency and implementation fees appear only as FAQ questions, and enterprise pricing is a custom quote, so the annual invoice is not fully computable. 2 2
The HR IT Integrator
Per-module prices are public with the seat/month basis — Performance $10 seat/month, Goals & OKRs $8 seat/month, Engagement $4 seat/month, Foundations $13 seat/month, Grow at +$4 seat/month and Compensation at +$6 seat/month as add-ons — with Analytics included in all base products. The pricing FAQ raises billing frequency, currency, minimum spend and implementation fees as questions but the captured pages give the questions without the answers, enterprise pricing is a custom quote, and I found no public information on Lattice AI pricing, minimum term or VAT treatment. 2 2 2
The Skeptic
Every module carries a public price with its basis and the billing period is answered: Performance at $10 seat/month, Goals & OKRs at $8, Engagement at $4, Grow at +$4, Compensation at +$6, billed monthly, quarterly or annually, with add-on prices listed. Enterprise is a custom quote, the captured pages state no VAT treatment, and the minimum spend and implementation fee questions appear only as FAQ headings without their answers. 2 2
European sovereignty — proven facts
1 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 | Incorporated in US ⚠ unverified | 0/3 pts | 4 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 Lattice
Is Lattice European?
No. whats-best.ai classifies Lattice as Rest of world. Its vendor, Degree, Inc., is incorporated in United States, per the vendor’s page captured 28 Oct 2026.
Where does Lattice store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 28 Oct 2026.
Does Lattice have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 28 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Lattice?
As of 28 Oct 2026, the panel rates Culture Amp (3.5/5), Small Improvements (3/5) and 15Five (3/5) highest among the other 18 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: Lattice 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. The finding comes from the privacy policy's 'About Us' section rather than an imprint, and it names a city and state (San Francisco, California) without literally naming the United States, so the US incorporation is inferred.
- 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.
- 22 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
- 19 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
- 5 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
- 5 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
- 4 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
- 3 pricing facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 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
Sources (10)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage lattice.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 +2 earlier captures: 26 Oct 2026, 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page lattice.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 +2 earlier captures: 26 Oct 2026, 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Performance reviews lattice.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 +2 earlier captures: 26 Oct 2026, 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Privacy policy lattice.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 +3 earlier captures: 26 Oct 2026, 19 Oct 2026, 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Terms of service lattice.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 +3 earlier captures: 26 Oct 2026, 19 Oct 2026, 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Performance reviews & calibration — found from sitemap lattice.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Performance reviews & calibration — found from sitemap lattice.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 +3 earlier captures: 26 Oct 2026, 26 Oct 2026, 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Goals, OKRs & continuous feedback — found from sitemap lattice.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Goals, OKRs & continuous feedback — found from sitemap lattice.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 +5 earlier captures: 19 Oct 2026, 19 Oct 2026, 15 Oct 2026, 13 Oct 2026, 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Learning, skills & succession — found from sitemap lattice.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →