Talent Management
Mirro
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by ZITEC COM S.R.L. · mirro.io
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.
Mirro at a glance
- Vendor
- ZITEC COM S.R.L.
- 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
- Starting price
- “Pricing starts at $6.5 / user / month billed annually.” (vendor’s words) source, captured 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Mirro 2/5, the mean of 6 judges. Mirro, a talent management platform from ZITEC COM S.R.L. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Mirro, a talent management platform from ZITEC COM S.R.L. in Bucharest aimed at medium and large organizations, is strongest on goals and feedback, where scores cluster at 7: objectives run at organization, department, team and individual level with tree-view alignment, quarter-over-quarter history and an audit trail naming who changed what and when. Performance reviews cluster at 4 — a named module with 360 input from peers, mentees and managers and documented visibility rules, but no public information on rating scales, calibration, employee sign-off or a kept review history. Learning and development is weakest, scores ranging 0-2: the only training mentioned is vendor-run workshops, which judges read as buyer onboarding, and we found no public information on skills or competency frameworks, learning paths, career paths or succession. The genuine splits are narrow: sovereignty scores range 2-3 on how much weight the unconfirmed processing region and subprocessor exposure carry against Google Cloud hosting with backups on European territory and a Made-in-the-European-Union badge; codetermination and privacy range 3-4, integrations and portability 4-5. Pricing transparency sits at 1 — four named plans, no public figures.
Speaks for it
- Objectives run at organization, department, team and individual level with tree-view alignment, a filterable organization-wide dashboard and quarter-over-quarter history
- Every progress change is logged with time and editor name, giving an auditable goal record
- Feedback is published as visible only to giver, receiver and performance managers, with private notes limited to the performance manager
- SSO, Slack, a plan-dependent Open API, over 200 Zapier connections, imports of users, roles, departments, contracts and management lines, and payroll and BI exports are all published
- The terms promise return or destruction of data within 30 days of the collaboration ending and state that the customer owns the content
Held against it
- Learning and development scores run 0-2, with no public information on skills or competency frameworks, learning paths, career paths or succession
- No public information on configurable rating scales, calibration across teams, employee sign-off or a per-employee review history behind the reviews module
- The sentiment summary that digests all feedback received by an individual is described only as a benefit, with no public information on its inputs, model provider or an off switch
- Hosting sits on Google Cloud with backups on European territory, while data residency and subprocessor exposure are recorded as unconfirmed and we found no public information on a subprocessor list
- We found no public information on SCIM provisioning, published API limits, a bulk export of the complete review, goal and feedback history, or a maintained sync with an incumbent HR system
Best for
- You need a goals engine: OKRs at organization, department, team and individual level, with alignment views and a change log naming who edited what and when
- You want continuous 360 feedback under published visibility rules — feedback visible only to giver, receiver and performance managers
- Your team wants performance and core HR in one suite, with imports of users, roles, departments, contracts and management lines and exports to payroll and BI
- You are a medium or large organization buying performance management first, with employee learning handled elsewhere
Avoid if
- You need a configurable review cycle — rating scales, calibration, employee sign-off — and performance reviews scores sit at 4 with no public information on any of these
- Employee development is central to your purchase — learning and development scores run 0-2 and the only training the captured pages show is vendor onboarding
- You must put a confirmed data chain in front of a works council before signing — sovereignty scores run 2-3 with data residency and subprocessor exposure recorded as unconfirmed
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Performance reviews & calibration | 2 of 5 |
| Goals, OKRs & continuous feedback | 3.5 of 5 |
| Learning, skills & succession | 0.5 of 5 |
| Works council, visibility & AI disclosure | 2 of 5 |
| HRIS sync, integrations & data portability | 2 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1.5 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
The pages name performance reviews and 360-style input from peers, mentees and managers, with predefined and self-built feedback forms and a rule I could quote in a works council — feedback visible only to giver, receiver and their performance managers. But I found no public information on configurable rating scales, calibration across teams, employee sign-off or a kept review history, which is what makes a rating defensible rather than a set of opinions. 1 6
The Managing Director
A named performance management module with reviews and real-time analytics sits on genuine 360 input from peers, mentees and managers, buildable feedback forms, and a stated rule that feedback is seen only by giver, receiver and their performance managers. I found no public information on rating scales, cycle configuration, calibration, employee sign-off or a kept review history, so the yearly conversation still starts partly from memory. 1 5 6
The People Analyst
There is 360° feedback from peers, mentees and managers, a set of predefined feedback forms plus a custom form builder, and check-ins that carry OKR status into the performance conversation. I found no public information on configurable rating scales, calibration across teams, employee sign-off or a per-employee review history — all things I need before a rating can enter a talent review. 1 5 6
The Works Council Member
A performance-review capability sits alongside OKRs and continuous feedback, with input collected from peers, mentees and managers and feedback forms I can build to suit the organisation — more than a free-text form. But we found no public information on configurable rating scales, calibration across teams, employee sign-off on reviews, or how long ratings are kept per person, all of which a works agreement has to name. 1 6
The HR IT Integrator
Reviews appear as a module with 360 input from peers, mentees and managers, custom feedback forms, and concrete visibility rules: feedback readable only by giver, receiver and performance managers, with private notes for the performance manager. We found no public information on rating scales, calibration across teams, cycle configuration with deadlines, employee sign-off, or export of the review history per employee. 1 5 6
The Skeptic
Performance reviews appear as a named module alongside 360 feedback from peers, mentees and managers, with predefined feedback forms and a stated visibility rule for who can read feedback — that is the whole structure the captured pages show. We found no public information on configurable rating scales, self-review, employee sign-off, calibration across teams, or a per-employee review history. That sits a little above fixed forms and well short of a configurable, traceable cycle. 1 2 6
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
Objectives run at organisation, department, team and individual level with alignment, an organisation-wide dashboard and an audit trail naming who changed what and when — exactly the year-end evidence I need instead of memory. Check-ins tie to OKR progress and feedback can be requested from named colleagues, with Slack and over 200 Zapier connections alongside; we found no public information on 1:1 agendas or dependency and confidence tracking, so it stops short of the full picture. 2 5 6
The Managing Director
This is the part I could actually run the company on: objectives at organisation, department, team and individual level with tree-view alignment, every progress change logged with time and editor name, public objectives as a choice, OKR history with a filterable dashboard, requested feedback with nudges, recognition tied to company values, and Slack alongside. I found no public information on one-to-one agendas or notes with shared and private parts, or on whether goal attainment feeds the year-end rating, and those gaps keep it out of the top band. 2 5 6
The People Analyst
Objectives run at organisation, department, team and individual level with tree-view alignment, custom key-result units, an audit trail of every progress update with editor name and time, and quarter-over-quarter history, alongside feedback requests, nudges and a Slack integration. The manager rhythm is thinner: I found no public information on 1:1 meeting agendas, goal dependencies or confidence tracking, and nothing on configuring whether goal attainment feeds the final rating. 2 5 6
The Works Council Member
Objectives run at organisation, department, team and individual level with tree-view alignment, and every progress change is logged with time and editor name — the audit trail a council wants before goals touch pay. Feedback requests go to named colleagues, private notes on feedback are visible only to the performance manager, and check-ins sit next to the OKR overview, with Slack integration named; we found no public information on goal dependencies, confidence tracking, or 1:1 agendas with declared private and shared parts. 2 5 6
The HR IT Integrator
Objectives cascade at organisation, department, team and individual level with tree-view alignment, every progress update logged with time and editor name, OKR history against previous quarters, and check-in pages carrying the OKR status; feedback requests, nudges and external links round it out, and Slack appears in the integrations list. We found no public information on 1:1 meeting agendas, dependencies or confidence tracking, or a stated rule for whether goal attainment feeds the year-end rating. 2 5 6
The Skeptic
OKRs at organization, department, team and individual level with alignment views, an organization-wide dashboard, historical comparison against previous quarters, and an audit trail of every progress change with time and editor name — this part is genuinely documented. Requested feedback, nudges and recognition are published too. We found no public information on 1:1 meeting agendas, goal dependencies or confidence tracking, and nothing stating the year-end review draws on this record, which keeps it below the near-complete level. 2 5 6
Learning, skills & succession
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Growing people rather than only rating them: learning paths or course delivery, a skills or competency framework, career paths and development plans, and talent reviews and succession planning for key roles.
0 — No development features; the product rates people but says nothing about developing them.
3 — A development-plan text field or a link to an external course catalogue, with no skills model and no succession view.
5 — Development plans linked to review outcomes, a configurable competency or skills framework, assigned learning content or integration with a named LMS, and career paths per role.
8 — Skills profiles per employee with gaps against role requirements, learning paths with completion tracking and mandatory training, talent reviews (such as a nine-box) with succession plans per key role, and internal mobility shown against open positions.
10 — Development is planned and measured: skills data maintained and versioned, learning outcomes linked to skills and reviews, succession coverage and risk reported per role, SCORM or xAPI content supported or a named LMS integrated both ways, and certificates and training records exportable.
The Head of HR
The capability list mentions workshops and trainings on demand and there is a knowledge centre, but those read as vendor onboarding rather than employee development. I found no public information on a skills or competency framework, development plans, career paths or any succession view — for a suite calling itself a People and Performance Platform, that is thin. 2 7
The Managing Director
The published module list runs from performance and OKRs through surveys, HRIS, compensation and leave, and the only training mentioned is onboarding workshops and customer support for me as the buyer. I found no public information on skills frameworks, learning paths, career paths or succession planning — the product rates people and says nothing about developing them. 1 2
The People Analyst
The only learning evidence is on-demand workshops and a knowledge centre aimed at implementing the software, not at developing employees. I found no public information on a skills or competency framework, development plans, learning paths, career paths, an LMS integration, or any succession and talent-review capability — as the owner of the skills model and the bench, this is the decisive gap for me. 2 7
The Works Council Member
Mirro rates and aligns people, but we found no public information on learning paths, a skills or competency framework, career paths, development plans or succession views. The only training mentioned is workshops on demand grouped with onboarding and customer support, which reads as vendor service rather than employee development. 1 2
The HR IT Integrator
The captured pages name no learning paths, skills or competency framework, career paths, or succession and talent-review view; the only training references are workshops and support for implementing the platform itself. We found no public information on employee development features. 2 7
The Skeptic
The captured module lists run from performance and OKRs to surveys, compensation and leave, and the only training mentioned is workshops the vendor runs on demand — onboarding for the customer's HR team, not development for employees. We found no public information on skills or competency frameworks, learning content or an LMS connection, career paths, or succession planning. The product rates people and the pages show nothing we could see about growing them. 1 2
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
Concrete, quotable visibility rules exist — feedback visible only to giver, receiver and their performance managers, private notes only to the performance manager — and access rights management is advertised. But the sentiment summary that condenses feedback into emotional tone and keywords per person is presented purely as a benefit, and I found no public information on its inputs, a way to switch it off, a minimum group size for anonymous survey results, or retention settings for review data; the only retention figure published concerns website contact details. 3 6 7
The Managing Director
One rule survives a works council read-through: feedback visible only to giver, receiver and their performance managers, private notes reserved for the performance manager, plus flexible access rights in general terms. I found no public information on a minimum group size for anonymous survey results, on configurable retention of review data (the three-year period I did find covers website visitors' personal data), and the sentiment summary that reads employees' feedback is described purely as a benefit, with its inputs and any disable option unstated. 3 6 7
The People Analyst
Feedback visibility is stated concretely — only the giver, the receiver and their performance managers, with private notes limited to the performance manager — and flexible access rights management is claimed. I found no public information on a minimum group size for anonymous survey results, configurable retention for review data, access logging, or any way to switch off the sentiment analysis that summarises an individual's feedback, and nothing aimed at a works council. 3 6 7
The Works Council Member
Two of my questions get answers: feedback is visible only to giver, receiver and performance managers, and private notes on feedback only to the performance manager; the privacy policy also names a fixed three-year storage period for users' personal data. But the survey module is sold with no stated minimum group size for anonymous results, we found no public information on access logging or configurable deletion of review data, and the sentiment summary that digests all feedback received by a person names no model provider, no off switch and no human decision before it lands. 3 4 6 7
The HR IT Integrator
Feedback visibility is documented precisely — only giver, receiver and performance managers see feedback, and private notes go only to the performance manager — alongside "flexible Access Rights management". The sentiment summary reporting emotional tone and keywords per individual is described only as a benefit, with no inputs, model provider or off switch stated, and we found no public information on a minimum group size for anonymous survey results, configurable retention of review data, access logging, or anything aimed at a works agreement. 6 7
The Skeptic
What can be verified is thin: flexible access rights management in general terms, feedback readable only by giver, receiver and performance managers, and private notes limited to the performance manager. The sentiment summary that reads all feedback received by an individual is presented purely as a benefit — we found no public information on its inputs, a switch to turn it off, or the model provider — and the same goes for any anonymity rule on the engagement surveys, configurable retention, access logging, or anything written for a works council. 3 6 7
HRIS sync, integrations & data portability
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How the tool fits next to the system of record and what leaves with the customer: employee and org-chart sync from the HR system, SSO and SCIM, collaboration-tool integrations, an API, and export of the full review, goal and feedback history.
0 — No HR-system integration and no export; employees and managers are maintained by hand and the history stays in the product.
3 — A CSV import of employees and a PDF export of single reviews, with no named HR-system integration and no API.
5 — Maintained sync with at least one HR system common in DACH (e.g. Personio, SAP SuccessFactors, HRworks), SSO, a documented API, and an export of review and goal data in a structured format.
8 — Several named HRIS integrations including org-chart and manager relations, SCIM provisioning, Microsoft Teams or Slack integration, webhooks, an API with published limits, and a bulk export of the complete review, goal and feedback history.
10 — Portability is designed in: a versioned API with a deprecation policy, a documented full export (structured data plus attachments) available at contract end, deletion that propagates to synced systems, and the vendor maintaining the German HRIS integrations itself.
The Head of HR
Single sign-on, a plan-dependent Open API, Slack, Docs and over 200 Zapier connections, plus import of users, roles, departments, contracts and management lines and exports to payroll and BI tools give a workable stack. But Mirro positions itself as the HRIS rather than naming sync with Personio or SAP SuccessFactors, admin accounts are created by the vendor from a submitted list, and I found no public information on SCIM provisioning, webhooks or a bulk export of the complete review and feedback history. 2 4 7
The Managing Director
Single sign-on, an Open API tied to the applicable plan, two hundred-plus integrations through Zapier, Slack, a documented import of users, roles, departments, contracts and management lines, and insight export to a BI tool of my choice. I found no public information on SCIM provisioning, webhooks, published API limits, or a bulk export of the complete review, goal and feedback history, and since Mirro positions itself as the HRIS of record, I found no public information on a maintained sync with an incumbent HR system. 2 4 7
The People Analyst
There is an open API tied to the applicable plan, SSO, a Slack integration and some two hundred integrations via Zapier, import of users, roles and management lines, BI export and payroll export, and the terms promise data return within thirty days. I found no public information on a maintained sync with a DACH HR system, SCIM provisioning, webhooks, published API limits, or a bulk export of the complete review, goal and feedback history — the history I would want to analyse outside the tool. 2 4 7
The Works Council Member
SSO, Slack, a plan-dependent open API and over 200 connections via Zapier are there, plus imports of users, roles, departments, contracts and management lines, a payroll export and a business-intelligence export. We found no public information on a maintained sync with a named HR system — Mirro is itself sold as the HRIS — nor on SCIM provisioning or a bulk export of the complete review, goal and feedback history; the terms do promise return or destruction of data within 30 days of the collaboration ending. 2 4 7
The HR IT Integrator
There is SSO, an Open API available "under the applicable plan", import of users, roles, departments, contracts and management lines, 200+ connections via Zapier, payroll and BI export, and terms that return content within 30 days with the customer owning it. The vendor positions its own HRIS rather than a named sync from Personio, SAP SuccessFactors or HRworks, and we found no public information on SCIM, published API documentation or limits, webhooks, or a bulk export of the complete review, goal and feedback history — at contract end I would be relying on a general confidentiality return clause. 1 2 4 7
The Skeptic
SSO, Slack, two hundred-plus connections via Zapier, a plan-gated open API, mobile apps and export hooks for payroll and BI are published, and the import scope covers users, roles, departments, contracts and management lines. We found no public information on a named HRIS sync, SCIM provisioning, API limits, or a bulk export of the complete review, goal and feedback history — the return-of-data clause covers confidential information generally, not a structured handover of five years of reviews. 2 4 7
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
Zitec in Bucharest is the contracting party, backup servers sit on European territory and the product carries a Made in the European Union mark, but the captured pages leave the primary hosting region on Google Cloud unstated, name no subprocessors and say nothing about where the sentiment analysis runs. The independently computed sovereignty attributes record data residency and subprocessor exposure as unconfirmed on the vendor's own pages, which for employee performance data I cannot put in front of a works council. 4 6 8
The Managing Director
The terms name a Bucharest company as operator, hosting sits on Google Cloud with backup servers on European territory, and the site says Made in the European Union. The rest of the chain stays unverifiable: I found no public information on a subprocessor list, on where the sentiment analysis and analytics processing run, or on any published certification — a thin basis for an employment-data agreement. 4 6 8
The People Analyst
The contracting entity is ZITEC COM S.R.L. in Bucharest, the platform runs on Google Cloud with backup servers on European territory, and the product is marketed as made in the European Union. The captured pages do not confirm where the primary data resides, and I found no subprocessor list and no statement of where the sentiment-analysis feature processes feedback, so the chain behind employment data cannot be put in front of a works council. 4 6 8
The Works Council Member
The terms name Zitec in Bucharest as operator with hosting on Google Cloud and servers on European territory, and the site carries a made-in-the-European-Union badge. But we found no published subprocessor list and no public information on where the AI sentiment processing runs, and the independently sourced checks on jurisdiction, ownership and data residency came back unconfirmed — as it stands I could not defend an end-to-end European chain to a works council. 4 6 8
The HR IT Integrator
The terms name Zitec with the Romanian supervisory authority as the complaint route, backups are stated to be on European territory, and the site carries "Made in the European Union". The application is hosted on the Google Cloud platform with the primary hosting region not confirmed on the captured pages, and we found no public information on a subprocessor list, on where the sentiment-analysis feature processes feedback, or on a data processing agreement covering employee performance data. 3 4 7
The Skeptic
The captured terms place the contracting entity in Bucharest, the platform on Google Cloud, and the backups on European territory, with a Made-in-the-EU badge on the site. Beyond that the chain goes dark: we found no public information confirming the region where live data is processed, no subprocessor list — including whoever powers the sentiment analysis — and no detail on a data processing agreement covering employee performance data. A cloud platform with an unconfirmed processing region and no visible subprocessors is the half-chain a works agreement cannot lean on. 4 6 8
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the real annual cost from public pages alone: the pricing basis (per employee, per active user, per module), which of reviews, goals, engagement surveys and learning sit in which tier, add-ons for AI or analytics, and the minimum term.
0 — No public prices at all; every module is a sales conversation.
3 — A starting price exists, but the pricing basis or which modules it covers is unstated — the invoice is unknowable.
5 — Module or tier prices public with the pricing basis given, but at least one commonly needed piece (engagement surveys, learning, AI features, HRIS integration) is unpriced.
8 — Every module or tier priced publicly with its basis, add-on prices listed, minimum headcount, minimum term and VAT treatment given.
10 — Complete price computability: the annual invoice derivable for a given headcount and module mix, with every add-on, implementation fee and overage published.
The Head of HR
The pricing page names four plans — Automated HRIS, Effective Performance, Mirro Professional, Mirro Enterprise — and states that all plans include free customer support, a dedicated customer success manager and live support on demand. We found no public information on any price, the pricing basis, minimum term or VAT treatment, so the annual invoice is a sales conversation, with the API flagged as plan-dependent and e-signature on a pay-as-you-go model. 2 4 7
The Managing Director
The pricing page names four plans, flags the most popular one and lists the support included in all plans, but I found no public price for any plan — no figures, no per-employee or per-user basis, no minimum term, headcount or VAT treatment, and the Enterprise tier is simply 'tailored for your needs'. Even the e-signature add-on is described only as a convenient pay-as-you-go model without a price, so the annual invoice cannot be computed from public pages. 2 7
The People Analyst
The pricing page names four plans and states that free customer support, a dedicated success manager and live support are included in all of them, and a free trial exists. I found no public prices at all, no pricing basis such as per employee, and no mapping of modules like surveys, compensation or the pay-as-you-go e-signature to tiers, so the annual invoice is not computable from what is published. 2 7
The Works Council Member
The pricing page names four plans — Automated HRIS, Effective Performance, Mirro Professional and Mirro Enterprise — and the terms define an active user as anyone awaiting invitation, invited or claimed, which at least fixes the billing unit. But we found no public price figures, no pricing basis with numbers, no minimum headcount or term, so a buyer cannot compute the real annual cost from the public pages. 2 4
The HR IT Integrator
The pricing page names four plans — Automated HRIS, Effective Performance, Mirro Professional, Mirro Enterprise — with what all plans include, but we found no public price figure, no pricing basis, and no headcount minimum or term; the e-signature add-on is offered only as "pay-as-you-go" without numbers. From these pages alone the annual invoice is not computable. 2 4 7
The Skeptic
The pricing page names four tiers and lists what support all plans include, but shows no figure: we found no public price, pricing basis, minimum term, or minimum headcount anywhere, and the way in is a free demo or trial. Electronic signature is advertised as pay-as-you-go with no unit price, so the annual invoice stays a sales conversation rather than something a buyer can compute. 2 7
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Mirro
Is Mirro European?
Yes. whats-best.ai classifies Mirro as EU-Made.
Where does Mirro store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Mirro have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Mirro?
As of 15 Oct 2026, the panel rates Culture Amp (3/5), Small Improvements (3/5) and Leapsome (2.5/5) highest among the other 15 Talent Management products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is Small Improvements (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Mirro alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 13 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency, Subprocessors. 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.
- 2 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 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
- 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
- 2 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 (8)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage mirro.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page mirro.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy mirro.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Terms of service mirro.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Goals, OKRs & continuous feedback — found from sitemap mirro.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Goals, OKRs & continuous feedback — found from sitemap mirro.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 HRIS sync, integrations & data portability — found from sitemap mirro.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 HRIS sync, integrations & data portability — found from sitemap mirro.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →