whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Talent Management

Lattice

Rest of world Report an error

Panel 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

Lattice: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai Lattice: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai (dark)

Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds. The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.

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

Lattice alternatives, European ones first →

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

The Managing Director

Weighted verdict

Runs a sixty-person company without a talent team and wants goals everyone can see, regular one-to-ones that actually happen, and a yearly conversation that is prepared rather than improvised. Has no patience for a suite that needs a consultant before the first review goes out.

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

Scored by The Managing Director

Panel median The Managing Director This judge’s scores over the panel median. Each label opens its reasoning below.
Scores per criterion, in stars out of 5
Criterion Panel median The Managing Director
Performance reviews & calibration 3 of 5 3 of 5
Goals, OKRs & continuous feedback 3 of 5 3 of 5
Learning, skills & succession 3 of 5 3 of 5
Works council, visibility & AI disclosure 1.5 of 5 1.5 of 5
HRIS sync, integrations & data portability 1.5 of 5 1.5 of 5
European sovereignty 1 of 5 1.5 of 5
Pricing transparency 3 of 5 3 of 5

Performance reviews & calibration

How this is scored

The review cycle itself: configurable templates and rating scales, self, manager and 360° input, calibration across teams, and whether each rating can be traced back to criteria fixed before the cycle began.

0 — No 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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Goals, OKRs & continuous feedback

How this is scored

The work between review cycles: individual and team goals or OKRs with alignment, progress check-ins, 1:1 meetings with shared agendas, and feedback and recognition — judged on whether the year-end review can draw on it rather than starting from memory.

0 — No goals or feedback features; objectives live in documents outside the product.

3 — Individual goals with 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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Learning, skills & succession

How this is scored

Growing people rather than only rating them: learning paths or course delivery, a skills or competency framework, career paths and development plans, and talent reviews and succession planning for key roles.

0 — No development features; the product rates people 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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Works council, visibility & AI disclosure

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

HRIS sync, integrations & data portability

How this is scored

How the tool fits next to the system of record and what leaves with the customer: employee and org-chart sync from the HR system, SSO and SCIM, collaboration-tool integrations, an API, and export of the full review, goal and feedback history.

0 — No HR-system integration, 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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

European sovereignty

How this is scored

Where performance, feedback and survey data lives, who the contracting entity is, and who the subprocessors are — including the AI providers that summarise reviews and feedback. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline. Weighted with the employment relationship in mind: these are judgements about people who did not choose the vendor.

0 — 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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Pricing transparency

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

1 of 4 dimensions proven

Built only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.

Ownership Not determined — uncited Report an error
Data residency Not determined — 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

What we left out

A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.

Do you know more about Lattice? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (10)

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

  1. 1 Vendor homepage lattice.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 +2 earlier captures: 26 Oct 2026, 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Pricing page lattice.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 +2 earlier captures: 26 Oct 2026, 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Performance reviews lattice.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 +2 earlier captures: 26 Oct 2026, 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Privacy policy lattice.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 +3 earlier captures: 26 Oct 2026, 19 Oct 2026, 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Terms of service lattice.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 +3 earlier captures: 26 Oct 2026, 19 Oct 2026, 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Performance reviews & calibration — found from sitemap lattice.com Checked 28 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 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. 8 Goals, OKRs & continuous feedback — found from sitemap lattice.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 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. 10 Learning, skills & succession — found from sitemap lattice.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →