Talent Management
Leapsome
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Leapsome GmbH · www.leapsome.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.
Leapsome at a glance
- Vendor
- Leapsome GmbH
- 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 Leapsome 2.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Leapsome (Leapsome GmbH, Berlin) is a talent management suite whose strongest criterion is performance reviews at 6-7: configurable templates, recurring cycles and AI calibration pre-reads flagging manager leniency under human review. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 1 Oct 2026 to 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Leapsome (Leapsome GmbH, Berlin) is a talent management suite whose strongest criterion is performance reviews at 6-7: configurable templates, recurring cycles and AI calibration pre-reads flagging manager leniency under human review. Goals and feedback and learning and development sit mid-scale, the learning rationales citing no public information on talent reviews, succession planning or skills-gap analysis. Integrations and portability score a uniform 6 on a documented Personio sync that creates accounts and builds reporting lines, plus a vendor-run two-week HRIS migration. The weakest criteria are pricing transparency at 1-2 — no price figure appears on the captured pages — and sovereignty at a flat 3: processing is stated as primarily within the EU/EEA, but transfers rely on the EU-US Data Privacy Framework and standard contractual clauses, a New York address appears, and we found no subprocessor list or named AI model provider. Codetermination and privacy split 4-6: higher scores credit the AI disclosure and terms barring automated employment decisions, lower ones on the works-agreement gaps — no published minimum group size for anonymity, no retention rules, no access logging.
Speaks for it
- Performance reviews score 6-7 with configurable templates, question banks, recurring cycles and AI calibration pre-reads kept under human review.
- The Personio integration creates a Leapsome user account for every new employee and syncs job title, department, manager, teams and reporting lines.
- Feedback, praise and meeting notes can be pulled into review writing, so the year-end judgement builds on the year's record.
- Each AI feature is named with its inputs, drafts have no standing until a human approves them, and use of Leapsome AI can be discontinued at any time.
- A fourteen-day trial and a two-week HRIS migration run by the vendor are stated.
Held against it
- Pricing transparency scores 1-2: we found no price figure of any kind on the captured pricing pages, so an annual invoice cannot be computed from them.
- Sovereignty scores 3, with transfers relying on the EU-US Data Privacy Framework and standard contractual clauses, a New York address published alongside Berlin, and we found no public subprocessor list or named provider behind the third-party AI models.
- We found no public information on a minimum group size behind the anonymity settings, retention or deletion of review data, access logging, or documentation aimed at works councils.
- Export is a CSV download of customer data within thirty days of termination, and we found no public information on SCIM provisioning, webhooks, published API limits or a bulk export of review, goal and feedback history.
- We found no public information on talent reviews such as a nine-box, succession planning or skills-gap analysis, which caps learning and development at 5-6.
Best for
- You run recurring performance, 360° and leadership review cycles and want goals, feedback and meeting notes feeding the year-end review.
- You use Personio and want automatic account creation with job title, department, manager, team and reporting-line sync.
- You want AI assistance kept under human control, with drafts that stand only once approved and the option to discontinue Leapsome AI at any time.
Avoid if
- You need to compute an annual invoice from published prices before talking to sales.
- Your procurement or works council requires a subprocessor list, named AI model providers and confirmed data locations before signing.
- You need a documented bulk export of your full review, goal and feedback history during the contract, not only the CSV download available within thirty days of termination.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Performance reviews & calibration | 3.5 of 5 |
| Goals, OKRs & continuous feedback | 3 of 5 |
| Learning, skills & succession | 3 of 5 |
| Works council, visibility & AI disclosure | 2.5 of 5 |
| HRIS sync, integrations & data portability | 3 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1.5 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 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
A shared competency framework with company-wide or team-specific skills guiding the review questions means criteria exist before the manager sits down. I found no public information on a documented rule for what the employee, the manager and HR can each see, on employee sign-off, or on exportable per-employee review history, so I could not confirm those from the captured pages. 4 6 7 11
The Managing Director
The review machinery reads like something my managers would actually run: performance, 360°, project, leadership and external review types, flexible templates with question banks, recurring cycles with automated notifications, and a shared competency framework steering the questions. Calibration shows up as AI pre-reads flagging things like manager leniency with every adjustment kept under human review — closer to a helpful assistant than an auditable calibration view with rating distributions. We found no public information on what the employee, the manager and HR can each see in a review, or on versioned criteria fixed before the cycle and per-employee review history export, so it sits a notch below the top band. 4 6 7 11
The People Analyst
Performance, 360°, project, leadership and external review types are described with flexible templates, question banks, recurring cycles, automated notifications, and a shared competency framework guiding review questions, and AI pre-reads flag manager leniency before calibration with every adjustment under human review. We found no public information on who may see which parts of a review, on rating distributions across teams, or on a per-employee export of review history, which keeps this below the upper band. 4 6 7 11
The Works Council Member
Reviews are configurable with templates and question banks, recurring cycles with automated reminders, project, 360°, leadership and external review types, and a competency framework that guides the questions. Calibration appears only as AI pre-reads flagging manager leniency under human review; we found no public statement of rating scales, employee sign-off, a rule for who sees which rating, or any record of changes made during calibration. 4 6 7 11
The HR IT Integrator
Review cycles are configurable end to end — recurring cycles with customizable rules and automated notifications, templates with question banks, review types from 360° to project-based and leadership — and calibration is supported by AI-generated pre-reads flagging manager leniency with every adjustment under human review, guided by a shared competency framework of company-wide or team-specific skills. We found no public information on a documented rule for what the employee, the manager and HR can each see, on rating-distribution views, or on attributed and versioned rating changes, which keeps it short of an auditable review process. 6 7 11
The Skeptic
Configurable templates and question banks, 360°/project/leadership review types, recurring cycles with automated reminders, and calibration pre-reads that flag manager leniency under human review are all documented, with a shared competency framework guiding the review questions. But we found no public information on employee sign-off, configurable reviewer selection, a documented rule for who sees which part of a review, or criteria versioned and fixed before the cycle — calibration adjustments are said to stay human-reviewed, not attributed and reasoned. 4 6 7 11
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
Company, team and individual goals with alignment, a 1:1 and team meetings module with structured agendas, and feedback, praise and meeting notes that surface when writing reviews — the year-end record draws on the year's work instead of memory, which is what I care about. Praise integrates with Slack and Microsoft Teams, and private feedback can sit outside the review cycles. I found no public information on goal change history, confidence or dependency tracking, or on stated private versus shared parts of 1:1 notes, so this sits below the strongest definition. 4 6 8 9
The Managing Director
Company, team and individual goals with alignment, a dedicated 1:1 and team meetings module driven by structured agendas, and feedback, praise and meeting notes that feed straight into the review — that is exactly the prepared year-end record I want instead of memory, with praise amplified through Slack or Microsoft Teams. We found no public information on logged goal history, dependencies and confidence tracking, or how private versus shared parts of 1:1 notes are handled, which is what keeps it out of the top band. 4 6 8 9
The People Analyst
Company, team and individual goals with alignment, 1:1s driven by structured agendas, public praise into Slack or Microsoft Teams, and private feedback tied to values and competencies are all evidenced, and goal progress, peer feedback, praise and meeting notes flow into the review rather than starting from memory. We found no public information on goal dependencies and confidence tracking, logged goal changes, private versus shared parts of 1:1 notes, feedback requests to named colleagues, or a setting for whether goal attainment affects ratings. 4 6 8 9
The Works Council Member
Goals are tracked and aligned at company, team and individual level, goal progress feeds the review, and 1:1 meetings run on structured agendas with private feedback and company-wide praise reaching Slack and Microsoft Teams. We found no public information on check-in cadence, logged goal history, or which parts of 1:1 notes stay private, so the year-end record still rests partly on memory. 4 7 9 12
The HR IT Integrator
Company, team and individual goals with alignment sit alongside 1:1 and team meetings driven by structured agendas, and feedback, praise and meeting notes can be pulled into review writing, with public praise integrated into Slack and Microsoft Teams and admins tracking feedback trends across teams. We found no public information on goal cascading with dependencies or confidence tracking, on goal-change history, or on private versus shared parts of 1:1 notes. 4 8 9 6
The Skeptic
Company, team and individual goals with alignment, 1:1 meetings on structured agendas, and feedback, praise and meeting notes that the review can draw on are all evidenced, so the year-end judgement genuinely builds on the year's record rather than memory. We found no public information on check-ins as a named rhythm, goal change history, dependencies or confidence tracking, or which parts of 1:1 notes are private versus shared; the Slack and Microsoft Teams integration is shown for praise. 4 8 9 12
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
An integrated learning management system with analytics on enrollment, progress and completion, quizzes that assess skill growth, a marketplace of pre-integrated compliance and soft-skills providers, and a competency framework whose skills are defined and visualized by level with growth pathways — development here is visibly more than a text field, and it connects to Goals, Surveys, HRIS and Reviews. I found no public information on talent reviews such as a nine-box, succession plans per key role, or skills-gap reporting against role requirements, and for a Head of HR that is the half I cannot run without. 4 10 11
The Managing Director
The learning side is real: an integrated learning management system for onboarding, management and compliance, a marketplace of pre-integrated content providers, course analytics tracking enrollment, progress and completion, and a skills framework visualised by level with AI-drafted learning paths tied to goals and reviews. For a company like mine, though, the yearly conversation eventually turns to succession, and we found no public information on talent reviews such as a nine-box, succession plans per key role, skills-gap analysis against role requirements, internal mobility, or SCORM and xAPI support, which caps it at the middle of the scale. 4 10 11
The People Analyst
A shared competency framework with company-wide or team-specific skills defined and visualised by level, AI-drafted learning paths with completion tracking and quizzes that assess skill growth, plus a marketplace of pre-integrated providers and Academy courses, gives a real skills-and-learning loop tied to goals and reviews. We found no public information on skills profiles with gaps against role requirements, talent reviews such as a nine-box, succession plans per key role, or internal mobility against open positions, which caps this score. 2 10 11
The Works Council Member
An integrated learning module offers a marketplace of pre-integrated training providers, enrollment, progress and completion analytics with quizzes, AI-drafted learning paths, and a competency framework with skills defined by level. We found no public information on succession planning, talent review views or skills-gap analysis, so development is supported but nothing is said about planning for key roles. 4 10 11
The HR IT Integrator
A competency framework with skills defined and visualised by level connects to reviews, goals and feedback, and the learning side offers AI-drafted learning paths with enrolment, progress and completion analytics plus a marketplace of pre-integrated course providers and the vendor's own academy courses. We found no public information on skills-gap analysis per employee, on mandatory training, on talent reviews such as a nine-box, or on succession planning per key role. 10 11 4
The Skeptic
A configurable competency framework visualized by level, an integrated LMS with a marketplace of pre-integrated training providers, enrollment and completion tracking with quizzes, and AI-drafted learning paths are all documented — this is more than a tag list. We found no public information on skills-gap analysis against role requirements, career paths per role, or any succession planning, nine-box or talent review; development is supported, but no mobility view is shown. 4 10 11
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 AI features are named — review drafting, meeting transcription, survey comment summarisation, framework drafting — with an option to disable Leapsome AI at any time, drafts that have no standing until a human takes them, agents that respect existing permissions, and a contractual bar on automated employment-related decisions without human review. Anonymity settings exist for reviews, and the pages claim GDPR and EU AI Act conformity. I found no public information on a minimum group size for anonymous results, field-level permissions, access logging on review data, configurable retention of review data, or documentation aimed at a works council, so I could not check a works agreement against these pages. 5 6 12 13
The Managing Director
Anonymity settings are confirmed for surveys and feedback, but we found no published minimum group size for anonymous results, no retention or deletion setting for review data, no access logging, and no documentation aimed at a works council. The AI disclosure is the strongest part: the features are named with their inputs — the review assistant drafts from goals, feedback and notes — nothing stands until a human reads and approves it, permissions are respected so AI sees only what the person can see, use can be discontinued at any time, automated employment decisions without human review are barred by the terms, and the vendor states EU AI Act conformity, though the model provider is not named and switching is described at feature level rather than per module. 2 6 7 12 13
The People Analyst
Each AI capability is named with its inputs — review drafting, one-click feedback summaries, competency and learning-path drafting, meeting summaries — with the option to disable Leapsome AI at any time, human confirmation before an agent acts, and agent access limited to permissions already set; anonymity settings for surveys are mentioned. We found no public information on a minimum group size for anonymous results, configurable retention or deletion of review data, access logging, or material aimed at a works council or a works agreement. 6 7 12 13 1
The Works Council Member
The AI features are named — review drafts, survey comment themes and sentiment, meeting summaries, competency drafting — each described as a draft under human control with an option to disable Leapsome AI, and the terms even prohibit automated employment-related decisions without human review. For the works agreement itself the gaps decide it: we found no minimum group size behind the mentioned anonymity settings, no retention or deletion rule for review data, no access logging, no field-level visibility rules, and the third-party models powering the AI are unnamed. 2 5 6 12 13
The HR IT Integrator
AI disclosure is stronger than usual: Leapsome AI is stated to run on third-party models, can be disabled at any time, agents only propose while humans confirm and approve what goes live, and the terms bar automated employment-related decisions without human review; survey anonymity settings are also mentioned. We found no public information on a minimum group size for anonymous results, on configurable retention or deletion of review data, on access logging, or on documentation or templates aimed at a works council. 6 12 13 5
The Skeptic
AI disclosure is unusually good: each feature is named with its inputs, outputs are drafts until a human claims them, agents propose and you confirm and see only what permissions allow, the AI terms permit discontinuing at any time, and the general terms bar automated employment-related decisions without human review, with an EU AI Act conformity claim on the pricing page. But we found no public information on the minimum group size behind anonymous results (only that anonymity settings exist), on retention or deletion of review data, on access logging, or on any documentation aimed at works councils — and the AI models are described only as third-party, provider unnamed. 2 5 6 12 13
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
The Personio integration is deep — a user account created for every new joiner, job title, department and manager synced, and teams and manager-to-direct-report lines built from Personio data — alongside single sign-on, Slack and Teams integrations, and vendor help with custom API and SFTP connections out of a stated hundred-plus. A CSV export is contractually available within thirty days of termination. I found no public information on SCIM provisioning, webhooks, published API limits, or further named HRIS systems beyond Personio. 5 9 14 15 1
The Managing Director
The Personio sync is genuinely deep — an account created for every new hire, job title, department and manager synced, and teams plus manager reporting lines built from it — with single sign-on, Slack and Microsoft Teams, one hundred plus integrations claimed, and a two-week HRIS migration run by the vendor itself. But we found no public information on SCIM provisioning, webhooks, or an API with published limits, and the export we can confirm is a contract-level download of customer data as comma-separated files within thirty days of termination rather than a documented bulk export of the complete review, goal and feedback history. 2 5 9 14 15 1
The People Analyst
Automatic Personio sync creates user accounts and carries job title, department, manager, teams and reporting lines, with customer setup documentation, SSO, praise into Slack or Microsoft Teams, custom API and SFTP help, a migration handled by Leapsome itself, and a CSV download of customer data available for thirty days after termination. We found no public information on further named HRIS connections beyond Personio, SCIM provisioning, webhooks, or published API limits. 1 2 5 9 14 15
The Works Council Member
A maintained Personio sync carries job titles, departments, managers and reporting lines, single sign-on is included, praise reaches Slack and Microsoft Teams, and after termination customers can download their data as CSV within thirty days. Beyond Personio the more than hundred integrations are not individually named, and we found no public information on SCIM provisioning, webhooks, an API with published limits, or a bulk export of the complete review, goal and feedback history. 2 5 9 14
The HR IT Integrator
The Personio integration does the record-side work I need — job title, department and manager sync automatically, teams and manager/direct-report reporting lines are created in Leapsome from Personio data, and setup documentation exists — alongside single sign-on, Slack and Teams integrations, a claimed hundred-plus connected systems, a vendor-run HRIS migration in two weeks, and a CSV download of customer data within thirty days of termination. We found no public information on SCIM provisioning, on published API documentation with rate limits, on webhooks, or on a bulk export of the complete review, goal and feedback history including attachments. 14 15 2 5 9 1
The Skeptic
The Personio integration is deep and documented — automatic account creation, job title/department/manager sync, teams and manager reporting lines — alongside single sign-on, Slack and Microsoft Teams, a claimed 100+ integrations, custom API and SFTP help, and a two-week HRIS migration run by the vendor. Export is real but thin: CSV-style files downloadable within thirty days of termination, stated generally for customer data rather than as a structured bulk export of the full review, goal and feedback history; we found no public information on SCIM provisioning, webhooks, or an API with published limits. 14 15 5 1 9
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where performance, feedback and survey data lives, who the contracting entity is, and who the subprocessors are — including the AI providers that summarise reviews and feedback. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline. Weighted with the employment relationship in mind: these are judgements about people who did not choose the vendor.
0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated, subprocessors unnamed, and AI processing of unclear location.
3 — EU hosting offered as an option while the contracting entity is non-EU, or the subprocessor list is absent, or AI features run outside the EU without saying so.
5 — EU hosting as standard and an EU contracting entity, but parts of the chain — AI summaries, email, analytics or support — are non-EU without an explained safeguard.
8 — EU hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, subprocessor list published including AI providers, and a DPA that covers employee performance data as the customer's processing.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: vendor, entity, hosting and every subprocessor European, certification published, and the AI features run within the EU on providers the customer can see.
The Head of HR
The privacy policy states data is processed primarily within the EU and EEA, names AWS and Google Cloud as hosting providers, and relies on standard contractual clauses as the fallback, and a Berlin address is published — but the captured pages also give a New York address and confirm neither the contracting entity's jurisdiction nor the location or provider of the models behind Leapsome AI, which may be third-party. No subprocessor list appears on the captured pages. For data about people who did not choose this vendor, that is exactly the situation the lower definition describes, and I will not assume more than is published. 3 13 2
The Managing Director
The privacy policy says data is processed primarily within the EU and EEA on infrastructure such as AWS and Google Cloud, relies on the EU-US Data Privacy Framework with standard contractual clauses as a fallback for US transfers, and the pages show Berlin addresses alongside ISO 27001 and SOC 2 badges — but the vendor's own captured pages do not confirm the contracting entity's jurisdiction, and a New York address sits in the pricing page footer. We found no public subprocessor list covering the AI providers, and no statement of where the third-party models behind the AI features actually run, which is precisely what I would need before putting my sixty people's reviews and feedback in this system. 2 3 13 2
The People Analyst
The privacy policy states processing primarily within the EU/EEA on infrastructure such as AWS and Google Cloud, with US transfers under the Data Privacy Framework or standard contractual clauses, the AI features run on unnamed third-party models, and a New York office address appears on the pricing page. We found no public confirmation of the contracting entity's jurisdiction, of where product data is hosted, or of a subprocessor list including the AI providers — thin for data about people who never chose this vendor. 3 13 2
The Works Council Member
The privacy policy says data is processed primarily within the EU and EEA, yet names AWS and Google Cloud as hosting examples, relies on the EU-US Data Privacy Framework and standard contractual clauses for transfers to the United States, and a New York address appears on the pricing page. No subprocessor list is published and the third-party models behind Leapsome AI are unnamed, so I cannot tell the council where review, survey and AI-processed data actually runs. 3 13 2
The HR IT Integrator
The privacy policy states data is processed primarily within the EU/EEA on infrastructure such as AWS and Google Cloud, with transfers relying on the EU-US Data Privacy Framework and standard contractual clauses, and Berlin addresses plus an ISO 27001:2022 badge are published. We found no public information on the subprocessor list, on the providers or processing location of the third-party models behind Leapsome AI, and the vendor's own captured pages do not confirm the contracting entity's jurisdiction — while a New York office address is published alongside the Berlin one. 3 13 10 2
The Skeptic
Processing is stated to run primarily within the EU/EEA with AWS and Google Cloud named as hosting providers and a Berlin company address published, but a New York address is also listed, transfers rely on the EU-US Data Privacy Framework and standard contractual clauses, and the subprocessor list is absent from everything captured. The AI features are said to be powered by third-party data models whose identity and location are not stated. These are judgements about people who did not choose the vendor; "primarily" and an unnamed model provider are not enough to go further. 3 13 2
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 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
The pricing pages name the add-ons — salary benchmarking and learning courses — list what is always included, show three currencies and a fourteen-day trial, and yet I found no public price figures on the captured pages, so no annual invoice can be computed from them. The terms only say billing picks up the actual users added through an HRIS connection, which points at a basis without stating prices or minimum term. For a buyer planning a budget, this is a structured sales conversation rather than pricing. 2 5 2
The Managing Director
The captured pricing pages name add-ons — salary benchmarking and learning courses — list what is always included, and offer a fourteen-day trial, but we found no public price figure, no pricing basis such as per employee or per active user, and no tier-to-module mapping with prices; the terms only hint that actual users added through an HRIS connection are billed on top of whatever was agreed. I cannot begin to compute an annual invoice for sixty people from these pages, and that means every module is a sales conversation. 2 5 2
The People Analyst
The captured pricing page names add-ons for salary benchmarking and learning courses, three currencies, what is always included, and a fourteen-day trial, and the terms state that users added through an HRIS connection are billed as additional users. We found no public price figures: no per-employee rate, no tier or module prices, no minimum term and no VAT treatment, so the annual invoice cannot be computed from the captured pages. 2 5 2
The Works Council Member
The pricing pages show currency options, add-ons such as salary benchmarking and learning courses, and which modules exist, but no price figure of any kind; we found no public per-employee or per-user amount, no tier assignment for surveys or learning, and no minimum term, though the terms do say users added through an HRIS connection are billed in addition. Nobody in this company could compute the annual invoice from what is published. 2 5 2
The HR IT Integrator
The captured pricing page names the full module list, the add-ons salary benchmarking and learning courses, three currencies and what is always included, and the terms add billing mechanics such as actual users added through an HRIS connection being billed and a fourteen-day default trial. We found no public price figures on the captured pages — no per-employee price, tier prices, minimum term, minimum headcount or VAT treatment — so the annual invoice cannot be computed from public information. 2 2 5
The Skeptic
The pricing page names add-ons (salary benchmarking, learning courses), currencies, and an always-included list, and the terms show billing follows actual user count, including users added through an HRIS connection — so the basis is visible in outline. But we found no public price figure anywhere: no tier price, no per-user amount, no minimum term beyond the fourteen-day trial. The invoice is still a sales conversation, just one with a visible table of contents. 2 5 2
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Leapsome
Is Leapsome European?
Yes. whats-best.ai classifies Leapsome as EU-Made.
Where does Leapsome store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Leapsome have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Leapsome?
As of 15 Oct 2026, the panel rates Culture Amp (3/5), Small Improvements (3/5) and Betterworks (2.5/5) highest among the other 15 Talent Management products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is Small Improvements (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Leapsome 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 — Data residency, Subprocessors, Legal entity. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- 91 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
- 11 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
- 10 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
- 10 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
- 7 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
- 6 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 hosting 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 subprocessors 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 data 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
- 3 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are 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 (15)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.leapsome.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page www.leapsome.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.leapsome.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Legal notice www.leapsome.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Terms of service www.leapsome.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Performance reviews & calibration — found from sitemap www.leapsome.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Performance reviews & calibration — found from sitemap site.leapsome.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Goals, OKRs & continuous feedback — found from sitemap www.leapsome.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Goals, OKRs & continuous feedback — found from sitemap site.leapsome.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Learning, skills & succession — found from sitemap www.leapsome.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Learning, skills & succession — found from sitemap www.leapsome.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Works council, visibility & AI disclosure — found from sitemap www.leapsome.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Works council, visibility & AI disclosure — found from sitemap www.leapsome.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 HRIS sync, integrations & data portability — found from sitemap www.leapsome.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 15 HRIS sync, integrations & data portability — found from sitemap site.leapsome.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →