Talent Management
Perdoo
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Perdoo GmbH · www.perdoo.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.
Perdoo at a glance
- Vendor
- Perdoo GmbH
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Default not stated; pages mention the EU source, captured 13 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Yes, per the vendor’s own page source, captured 1 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Perdoo 2/5, the mean of 6 judges. Perdoo, an OKR and strategy-execution product from Perdoo GmbH of Berlin, is strongest at its core: goals and feedback and integrations and portability each scored 7 with no spread — company, team and individual OKRs and KPIs, weekly check-ins, BambooHR and Factorial sync. 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
Perdoo, an OKR and strategy-execution product from Perdoo GmbH of Berlin, is strongest at its core: goals and feedback and integrations and portability each scored 7 with no spread — company, team and individual OKRs and KPIs, weekly check-ins, BambooHR and Factorial sync. Performance reviews sit at 4: customizable question sets answered by both parties read as a structured conversation, and we found no public information on rating scales, calibration or 360° input. Codetermination and privacy sits at 4: retention is published, while we found no public information on works-council documentation. Learning and development is the weakest criterion with the widest range, 0 to 2; the works council member scored 0, reasoning that a product that rates people "without any evidenced means of developing them" earns the bottom score. Pricing transparency spans 2 to 3 — we found no public monetary figure, and the captured pages give different figures for which plans include reviews. Sovereignty spans 4 to 5: the privacy policy states storage in the EU (Frankfurt, Germany), and we found no public information on a subprocessor list.
Speaks for it
- Goals and feedback scored 7 with no spread, covering company, team and individual OKRs and KPIs aligned to Strategic Pillars
- Integrations and portability scored 7 with no spread, with BambooHR and Factorial sync, SSO, SCIM, a GraphQL API and CSV, PDF and PPT exports
- Retention is published: deletion from production within 30 days of termination, with backups rotated within 90 days
- A Superadmin can switch the AI Assistant off, and users choose the AI model per generation
- A free tier covers up to 5 people
Held against it
- Learning and development scores span 0 to 2, and we found no public information on development plans or a skills or competency framework
- Performance reviews sit at 4, and we found no public information on rating scales, calibration or 360° input
- The performance review exports as a PDF of a single review rather than a structured record
- Pricing transparency spans 2 to 3, and we found no public monetary figure, pricing basis, minimum term or VAT treatment
- We found no public information on a subprocessor list or on where the connected AI models (ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, Gemini) process data
Best for
- You run strategy on OKRs and KPIs and want the year-end review to start from the goal record rather than memory
- You sync your HRIS from BambooHR or Factorial and provision users via SSO and SCIM
- You want goal history exportable as CSV or through the API for analysis outside the tool
- You want to pilot with up to 5 people on the free tier
Avoid if
- You need rating scales, calibration or 360° input in your appraisal cycle; performance reviews scored 4 and we found no public information on any of these
- You need employee development; learning and development scores span 0 to 2, and the OKR Academy trains customers on the OKR method
- You must compute an annual cost before committing; we found no public monetary figure, so the annual invoice cannot be computed
- Your works council requires documentation on visibility rules, access logging and where AI processing runs; codetermination and privacy scored 4
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 | 3.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 2 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 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
What is evidenced is a manager-and-employee form with customizable question templates, a scheduled review with reminder emails two weeks before and again on the day, and a summary view of both parties' responses appearing on the meeting day. For a four-hundred-person cycle I still could not defend a rating: we found no public information on rating scales, calibration across teams, 360 input, employee sign-off, or a documented rule for who sees the stored review beyond that summary view. 2 6 9
The Managing Director
Customizable question sets with responses from both manager and report, a summary view that opens on the meeting day, reminder emails two weeks out and on the day, and the review stored in the product with a PDF export — a real, simple cycle I could run without help. But we found no public information on rating scales, 360° input, calibration across teams, employee sign-off, or a documented rule for who sees the review. 6 9 2
The People Analyst
User and Team Reviews are customizable question templates that both parties fill in, with a side-by-side summary on the meeting day, reminder emails two weeks before and on the day, and the completed review stored in the product with PDF export. I found no public information on rating scales, 360° input, calibration across teams, or a documented rule for what HR, the manager and the employee each see, so this reads as a structured conversation rather than an auditable rating process. 6 9
The Works Council Member
Reviews are customizable question sets with responses from both the manager and the employee, a summary view on the meeting day, reminder emails two weeks before and on the day, and the completed review stored in the product with a PDF export. We found no public information on rating scales, 360° input, calibration across teams, or a documented rule for what the employee, the manager and HR can each see — and that last gap is exactly what I need before signing anything. 6 9 7
The HR IT Integrator
User and team reviews are customizable question sets with responses from both parties, stored in Perdoo, reminder emails two weeks before and on the day, and a summary view of both sides' answers becoming visible on the meeting day. We found no public information on rating scales, calibration or peer input, and the review exports as a PDF of one meeting rather than the structured record I would have to migrate at contract end. 6 9 2
The Skeptic
Reviews are a manager–direct-report conversation with customizable question templates, responses from both parties, a summary view on the meeting day, reminder emails two weeks before and on the day, and the record stored with PDF export. We found no public information on rating scales, calibration across teams, 360° input, or a documented rule for who beyond the pair sees the responses — what is described reads closer to a structured conversation than an auditable appraisal. 6 9 2
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
The year-end talk starts from the record, not memory: OKRs and KPIs at company, team and individual level align explicitly to Strategic Pillars, weekly five-minute check-ins feed dashboards and automated leader reports, 1:1s and kudos connect to the goal data, and goals progress plus peer recognition surface right beside the review form, with Slack and Teams carrying the ritual. We found no public information on confidence tracking, feedback requests to named colleagues, or how 1:1 notes split private and shared parts, and with no rating scales evidenced it is unstated whether goal attainment feeds ratings. 2 6 8 11
The Managing Director
This is the core of the product and it matches what I run a company on: company, team and individual OKRs and KPIs aligned explicitly to strategy, weekly five-minute check-ins, shared views like the Strategy Map and off-track OKRs, kudos recognition, delivery inside Slack and Teams, and goal progress plus recognition surfaced alongside the review form so the year-end talk starts from the record. We found no public information on shared 1:1 agendas with a private part, goal change history, or requested feedback from named colleagues being pulled into a review. 2 8 11 1 6
The People Analyst
Company, team and individual OKRs and KPIs align explicitly to Strategic Pillars, weekly check-ins feed dashboards and automated leader reports, and the review form surfaces goals progress and peer recognition rather than starting from memory — the connective tissue I want between cycle and record. Slack and Teams carry the check-ins, and goal history exports as CSV or through the API. I found no public information on confidence tracking, feedback requests to named colleagues, or private versus shared parts of 1:1 notes. 2 6 8 11
The Works Council Member
This is the product's core: OKRs and KPIs at company, team and individual level with cascade views and strategy alignment, weekly five-minute check-ins, integrated 1:1s and performance reviews connected to the goal data, kudos recognition, and Slack and Teams integration for the rhythm. We found no public information on confidence tracking, logged goal changes, or private versus shared sections in 1:1 notes — the structure that would tell me who can read a manager's private note. 8 2 11 12 1
The HR IT Integrator
OKRs and KPIs sit at company, team and individual level with explicit alignment, weekly check-ins, integrated 1:1s and kudos, check-ins delivered through Slack and Teams, and historical progress exportable per item as CSV or through the API. The review form itself surfaces goal progress and peer recognition, so the year-end discussion does not start from memory; we found no public information on dependencies and confidence tracking, private and shared parts of 1:1 notes, or feedback requests to named colleagues. 8 6 11 12 2
The Skeptic
The goal engine is the real thing: company, team and individual OKRs and KPIs with explicit alignment to company goals and Strategic Pillars, weekly check-ins, integrated 1:1s, kudos, Slack and Teams delivery, and historical goal progress exportable as CSV. Goal progress and peer recognition are surfaced alongside the review form, so a cycle starts from the record rather than memory. We found no public information on feedback requests to named colleagues, confidence tracking on goals, or a setting for whether goal attainment affects ratings. 8 6 2 11 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
The only development-adjacent evidence is the review definition naming career growth as a conversation topic and the vendor's own OKR Academy for methodology training, neither of which develops my people. We found no public information on a skills or competency framework, development plans, career paths, learning content or a named LMS, or any talent-review or succession view. 5 6 7
The Managing Director
The only traces are a review conversation said to cover career growth and an OKR Academy aimed at customers adopting the method. We found no public information on development plans, a skills framework, learning content, talent reviews or succession planning. 6 7 5
The People Analyst
This is the criterion I own and it is nearly silent: the review conversation 'encourages a healthy conversation around performance, goals, career growth', and the vendor offers an OKR Academy, but I found no public information on a skills or competency framework, development plans, learning paths, talent reviews or succession views. The product helps execute strategy while saying almost nothing about growing the people who deliver it. 6 7
The Works Council Member
The review conversation is described as covering career growth, and the vendor teaches the OKR method through its OKR Academy, but we found no public information on development plans, a skills or competency framework, learning content, career paths or succession planning. A product that rates people without any evidenced means of developing them gets the bottom score from me. 5 6 7
The HR IT Integrator
The review is said to encourage conversation around career growth, and an HR module plus the OKR Academy are named, but the Academy is training on the product itself. We found no public information on skills or competency frameworks, development plans, learning paths or succession planning, so there is nothing here a development conversation could stand on. 6 7 5
The Skeptic
Reviews encourage a conversation about career growth, and the vendor offers an OKR Academy plus rollout coaching — customer education for the buyer's programme, not development for the employee being reviewed. We found no public information on a skills or competency framework, learning paths, career paths, development plans or any succession or talent-review view. 6 7 5
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 Assistant and AI Coach are named with what they process, a superadmin can switch them off from Configure, users choose the model, and the privacy policy fixes deletion at 30 days after termination with 90-day backup rotation. What a works agreement needs is largely unanswered: we found no public information on an anonymity minimum for the pulse survey, documented visibility rules per role for review data, access logging, or configurable retention, and the AI model providers and their processing location go unnamed while ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot and Gemini can be connected to the account. 2 3 10 11 10
The Managing Director
Retention is stated plainly — data deleted from production within 30 days of termination, backups rotated within 90 days — and the AI Assistant can be switched off, but only by a superadmin. Access control is described only in general terms (roles "affect what users can see"), and we found no public information on an anonymity minimum for the pulse survey, access logging, the model provider behind the AI features, or anything aimed at a works council. 3 2 10 10 2
The People Analyst
The privacy policy names its data categories, states EU hosting in Frankfurt, deletion within 30 days of termination with 90-day backup rotation, and the AI Assistant can be switched off from Configure by a Superadmin with the model chosen per generation. I found no public information on a minimum group size for the pulse survey, access logging, field-level permissions on review data, or documentation aimed at a works council, and nothing on where the connected AI models process data. 3 10 10
The Works Council Member
Retention is stated outright — deletion from production within 30 days of termination, backups rotated within 90 days — and each AI feature is named with its purpose and gated behind superadmin enablement, with roles said to affect only what users can see and do. But we found no public information on a minimum group size for pulse survey results, on documented visibility rules for review data, on access logging, or on where the user-selectable AI models — connectable to ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot and Gemini — process our colleagues' goals and comments. 3 10 11 2 10 2
The HR IT Integrator
The privacy policy states EU storage in Frankfurt and concrete deletion behaviour, and the AI Assistant can be switched off by a Superadmin with the model chosen per generation. But we found no published anonymity minimum group size, no configurable retention, no access logging and no works-council documentation, and the AI features connect to ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, Gemini and Perplexity with no statement of where that processing runs — a poor basis for a works agreement. 3 10 11
The Skeptic
Retention is published — data kept for the life of the account, deleted from production within 30 days of termination, backups rotated within 90 days — and the AI Assistant and AI Coach are named with their inputs (context, progress history, sub-goals), gated behind a Superadmin action, with per-plan token allocations and user model choice. We found no public information on a minimum group size for anonymous Pulse survey results, field-level permissions or access logging on review data, or any documentation aimed at a works council or works agreement. 3 10 10 2 6
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
BambooHR and Factorial sync users, teams, reporting lines and org structure, SCIM and SSO are documented for the usual identity providers, Slack and Teams carry check-ins, and a GraphQL API plus CSV, PDF and PPT exports cover users, teams, goals and per-item history including historical data via the API. Two things keep it from the top: the performance review itself exports only as a PDF, and we found no public information on webhooks, published API limits, or a bulk export of the complete review and feedback history. 6 11 12 1
The Managing Director
Named sync with BambooHR and Factorial including teams and reporting lines, SSO via Google and Microsoft, SCIM via Okta and OneLogin, the whole app inside Microsoft Teams, a GraphQL API said to push and pull anything, and CSV, PDF and PPT exports of users, teams, goals and historical progress per key result. We found no public information on webhooks, published API limits, or an export of the feedback history. 11 12 1 6
The People Analyst
BambooHR and Factorial sync users, teams and reporting lines, SSO and SCIM run via Entra, Okta and OneLogin, a GraphQL API promises to push and pull anything, and users, teams and goals export in bulk as CSV with historical goal data available through the API. My reservation as an analyst who works outside the tool: the completed review exports only as a PDF, so review and feedback history cannot leave as analysable data. I found no public information on webhooks or published API limits. 6 11 12
The Works Council Member
Named HRIS sync with BambooHR and Factorial including org structure and reporting lines, SSO via Google, Microsoft and SAML, SCIM provisioning via Okta and OneLogin, Slack and a full Teams embedding, a GraphQL and open API, and exports of users, teams and goals to CSV, PDF and PPT plus per-key-result history and historical export via the API. We found no public information on webhooks or published API limits, and the complete review history is evidenced only as a single PDF per review, not a bulk export. 11 12 1 6
The HR IT Integrator
BambooHR and Factorial sync users, teams, reporting lines and org structure, SSO runs via Google, Microsoft Entra ID or any SAML 2.0 provider, SCIM provisioning covers Okta, OneLogin and Azure AD, and a GraphQL API is described as pushing and pulling anything in Perdoo. Users, teams and goals export as CSV and historical data leaves through the API, which is most of what I ask for — but the performance review itself exports as one PDF per review, and we found no public information on webhooks or published API limits, and no DACH-typical HRIS such as Personio, SAP SuccessFactors or HRworks among the named integrations. 11 12 6 1
The Skeptic
BambooHR auto-provisions users, teams and reporting lines, Factorial syncs employees and org structure, SSO runs via Google, Microsoft and SAML, SCIM via Okta, OneLogin and any SCIM 2.0 provider, the whole app runs inside Microsoft Teams and Slack, and a GraphQL API covers push and pull. Users, teams and goals export to CSV, PDF or PPT with historical data reachable through the API, though the review export shown is a PDF of a single review; we found no public information on webhooks or published API limits. 11 12 1 6
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 footing is genuinely European: the contracting entity is Perdoo GmbH in Berlin and the privacy policy states customer data is stored in the EU in Frankfurt. Beyond that the chain goes unexamined — we found no public information on a published subprocessor list or on which providers run the AI Assistant, AI Coach and MCP server and where they process, and the connectable AI clients are named without any stated safeguard for where that processing happens. 3 4 11
The Managing Director
The contracting entity is Perdoo GmbH in Berlin and the privacy policy states customer data is stored in the EU in Frankfurt. We found no published subprocessor list, no certification, and no statement of where the AI Assistant or the ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot and Gemini connections process review and goal data — for a tool holding judgements about my people, that gap matters. 10 3 11 1
The People Analyst
The imprint names Perdoo GmbH in Berlin and the privacy policy stores customer data in the EU in Frankfurt — the right shape for a German vendor holding judgement data about employees. But I found no public information on a subprocessor list, and the AI features connect to ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, Gemini and Perplexity with no statement of where that processing happens or what safeguards apply. 3 10 11
The Works Council Member
Perdoo GmbH in Berlin is the named contracting entity and the privacy policy states customer data is stored in the EU (Frankfurt, Germany) with a commitment never to sell personal data. We found no public information on the subcontractor list, on certification, or on where the AI features process data — the model is user-selectable and the product connects to ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot and Gemini — so the chain behind Frankfurt stays dark. 3 4 11 10
The HR IT Integrator
The contracting entity is Perdoo GmbH in Berlin and the privacy policy states that customer data is stored in the EU in Frankfurt, with a commitment never to sell personal data. We found no published subprocessor list, the AI features run through ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, Gemini and Perplexity without any statement of processing location, and the independently sourced sovereignty attributes report residency and subprocessors as unconfirmed — enough EU substance to be workable, not enough to certify the chain. 10 3 11 1
The Skeptic
Perdoo GmbH in Berlin is the contracting entity and the privacy policy states customer data is stored in the EU (Frankfurt, Germany). We found no public information on a subprocessor list, and the AI features connect to ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot and Gemini with the processing location unstated and no safeguard described — for a tool that drafts employee progress updates, that is the part a works council will ask about first. 10 3 11 1
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
Public and useful: a free tier for up to five people, a three-step ladder whose token allowances read 20k, 250k and 500k per month, equal pricing for standard, admin and superadmin roles, and a service level agreement flagged at the top tier. The captured pages give different figures for which plans include reviews, and we found no public figures for the paid plans' price or per-person basis, no minimum term and no VAT treatment — I cannot compute an annual invoice from these pages. 2 6 10 2
The Managing Director
The pricing page shows a free tier for up to 5 people, maps features to plans (AI Assistant on Premium and Supreme, token allocations of 20k/mo, 250k/mo and 500k/mo, SLA only on the top tier), and states that standard, admin and superadmin roles all cost the same — but we found no public per-employee or per-account price, no minimum term, and no price for purchasing more tokens, so the annual invoice cannot be computed. The captured pages also give different figures for which plans include reviews. 2 2 10 6 10
The People Analyst
The captured pricing page shows 'Free for up to 5 people', per-plan AI token allowances, that roles all cost the same, and which features sit in which plan — but I found no public information on paid-plan prices, minimum term or VAT treatment, so the annual invoice cannot be computed from these pages. The captured pages also give different placements for reviews across plans (listed among every plan's features on the pricing page, Supreme in the review documentation). 2 6 2
The Works Council Member
The captured pages give plan structure — free for up to 5 people, AI token allowances of 20k, 250k and 500k per month by plan, performance reviews only on Supreme, AI on Premium and Supreme, and a service level agreement asterisked at the highest tier — but we found no public price figures, no pricing basis per employee or user, and no minimum term or VAT treatment. Without a single euro amount, no buyer can compute the real annual invoice. 2 2 6 10
The HR IT Integrator
The pricing page shows a tiered structure with feature inclusions per tier, a free tier for up to five people, equal pricing for standard, admin and superadmin roles, and token allocations of 20k, 250k and 500k per month. We found no public monetary prices, pricing basis, minimum term or VAT treatment in the captured pages, so the real annual invoice cannot be computed and AI tokens are only priced as purchasable extras. 2 2 10
The Skeptic
The captured pages show a free tier for up to 5 people, per-plan AI token allocations, and equal pricing across standard, admin and superadmin roles; they give different indications of which plan carries reviews, with the support article placing Performance Reviews on Supreme while the pricing page lists user and team reviews among features on all plans. We found no public information on any monetary figure for a paid tier, the pricing basis, the minimum term or VAT treatment, so an annual cost cannot be computed. 2 2 6 10
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 | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Perdoo
Is Perdoo European?
Yes. whats-best.ai classifies Perdoo as EU-Made.
Where does Perdoo store data?
The default storage location for customer data is not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026. The vendor’s pages mention the EU as hosting location, per the vendor’s page captured 13 Oct 2026.
Does Perdoo have a free plan?
Yes. Perdoo has a free plan, per the vendor’s page captured 1 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Perdoo?
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: Perdoo 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. 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.
- 21 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
- 18 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
- 17 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
- 13 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
- 9 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
- 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
- 1 pricing fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 subprocessors fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (12)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.perdoo.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page www.perdoo.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.perdoo.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Legal notice www.perdoo.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Terms of service www.perdoo.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Performance reviews & calibration — found from sitemap support.perdoo.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Performance reviews & calibration — found from sitemap www.perdoo.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Goals, OKRs & continuous feedback — found from sitemap www.perdoo.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Goals, OKRs & continuous feedback — found from sitemap support.perdoo.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Works council, visibility & AI disclosure — found from sitemap support.perdoo.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 HRIS sync, integrations & data portability — found from sitemap www.perdoo.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 HRIS sync, integrations & data portability — found from sitemap support.perdoo.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →