Talent Management
Small Improvements
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Small Improvements Software GmbH · www.small-improvements.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.
Small Improvements at a glance
- Vendor
- Small Improvements Software 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
- Starting price
- “Small Improvements starts at $3 a month, per user.” (vendor’s words) source, captured 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Small Improvements 3/5, the mean of 6 judges. Small Improvements, a talent management platform from a vendor presenting as a Berlin company, targets organisations of 50 to 750 staff. 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
Small Improvements, a talent management platform from a vendor presenting as a Berlin company, targets organisations of 50 to 750 staff. The bench found it strongest at performance reviews and goals: performance review scores run 7-8, with calibration that tracks two rating versions, distributions by department, location and gender, and role-by-role permission documentation; goals and feedback scores run 7-8 on cascading objectives and a stored record that feeds the next review. It is weakest at pricing transparency, scored 1-2, with no public price figures, pricing basis, minimum term or VAT treatment, and at learning and development, scored 2-4, where the visible material is a nine-box and AI claims rather than learning paths, a skills framework or succession planning. Sovereignty scores 3-4: the platform is hosted by Google Ireland Ltd. in Dublin with an EU data center available, but no subprocessor list is published and where the AI features process is not stated. The judges scored consistently — no criterion spans more than two points — with codetermination and privacy at 4-6 and integrations and portability at 6-7.
Speaks for it
- Calibration tracks both the pre-calibrated and final rating versions, with distributions cut by department, location and gender
- Role-by-role permission documentation names who may view review content, and even HR Admins cannot access data above them in the hierarchy
- A full XML export of the company database is usable to populate another system on exit, alongside per-feature ZIP exports
- Objectives cascade from individual to company level, with Slack updates and stored notes that prepare the next formal review
- A Swagger-documented REST API with revocable personal access tokens joins SSO, SFTP sync and CSV import
Held against it
- No public price figures, pricing basis, minimum term or VAT treatment — the annual invoice is a sales conversation
- Development stops at a nine-box, AI-surfaced training needs and an uploadable career matrix, with no public information on learning paths, a skills framework, an LMS or succession planning
- No published subprocessor list — removal from related subprocessors requires contacting support — and no statement on where the AI features process or which provider runs them
- HRIS integrations appear in the tier structure without a single named system, and no public information covers SCIM provisioning or webhooks
- No public information on a minimum group size for confidential survey results or on retention settings for review data
Best for
- You run a company of 50 to 750 staff and want calibrated review cycles with objectives cascading between them
- You need a documented roles-and-permissions rulebook you can build a works agreement around
- You want your data to leave with you — a full company database export usable to populate another system if you switch
- Your team works in Slack and wants objective updates delivered into a channel in real time
Avoid if
- You need a real development programme — skills frameworks, learning paths, course delivery or succession plans for key roles
- You must compute your annual invoice from published prices before entering a sales process
- You need a published subprocessor list and a named model provider for the AI features before employee data flows to them
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Performance reviews & calibration | 4 of 5 |
| Goals, OKRs & continuous feedback | 3.5 of 5 |
| Learning, skills & succession | 2 of 5 |
| Works council, visibility & AI disclosure | 3 of 5 |
| HRIS sync, integrations & data portability | 3.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 2 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
The calibration machinery is real: distributions across departments, locations and genders, two versions of every rating tracked (pre-calibrated and final), and a calibration tag the reviewed employee never sees. We found no public information on review criteria per role or competency models versioned and fixed before the cycle begins, or on calibration changes being individually attributed and reasoned. 5 6 10 1
The Managing Director
Calibration is real here, not decorative: cycles track the pre-calibrated manager rating alongside the final one, distributions can be sliced by department, location and gender, and reminders fire per cycle with progress grouping. The permission guide states plainly who may see review content, right down to HR Assistants being shut out of it. We found no public information on criteria fixed and versioned before the cycle or on attributed rating changes during calibration, so I stop short of the top. 5 6 10
The People Analyst
Calibration is genuinely built in: averages and distributions across departments, locations and genders, two versions of the rating tracked through calibration with the calibrated status hidden from the reviewee, and reminders automated along the cycle. The permission documentation goes further than most vendors — HR Assistants categorically cannot open review content, and even HR Admins are blocked above their own reporting line. We found no public information on configurable rating scales or review criteria fixed per role or level, and no statement that changes made during calibration are attributed with reasoning. 1 5 6 10 12
The Works Council Member
Calibration is genuinely built in: averages and distributions across departments, locations and genders, two rating versions kept (the manager's initial submission and the calibrated result), and the reviewed employee is not told their rating was calibrated. Who may read what is documented role by role, including that HR Admins cannot access reviews of users above them in the hierarchy. We found no public information on review criteria versioned and fixed per role before the cycle begins, which keeps this short of an auditable process. 5 6 10 12
The HR IT Integrator
Calibration is real here: pre- and post-calibration rating versions, averages and distributions across departments, locations and genders, and a stated rule that the reviewee never sees the calibrated status. The role-by-role documentation of who may access review content is unusually explicit, with 360 cycles, admin-managed peer reviewers, reminders and an export for calibration analysis. I found no public information on rating scales or criteria configurable per role or level, or on who changed and why a rating changed during calibration, which is what holds this below a higher score. 1 5 6 10
The Skeptic
Calibration is real here, not a tagline: cycles track the pre-calibrated manager submission and the final calibrated rating, distributions can be cut by department, location and gender, and the role matrix documents who may read review content, with the calibrated status tag kept from the employee. I found no public information on criteria fixed before the cycle begins, on attribution and reasoning for rating changes, or on review criteria per role or level, which is what separates calibration from an auditable process. 5 6 10 1
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 cascade from company to team to individual, one-to-ones run on shared agendas with company templates and nudges, Slack pushes objective updates, and the stored feedback history means the year-end review draws on the record rather than memory. Feedback requests go to named colleagues and company-wide goal reporting exists by department, status and location. We found no public information on goal-change history logging, dependencies or confidence tracking, or on configuring whether goal attainment feeds the rating. 7 8 10 1
The Managing Director
Cascading objectives down from company level, a team dashboard to see everyone's priorities, Slack pinging on objective updates, and shared 1:1 agendas with company templates and nudge emails — that is the year I want to run. Notes, milestones and peer insights are stored in one place specifically to prepare the next formal review rather than improvising it. We found no public information on goal-change history or confidence tracking, which keeps it off the top rung. 1 7 8 10
The People Analyst
Cascading objectives from company to individual, company-wide goal reporting by department, status and location, shared 1:1 agendas with company templates, feedback requests to named colleagues and Slack updates cover most of the ground between cycles. Crucially for me, notes, milestones and peer insights are stored in one place expressly to prepare the next formal review, so the year-end record does not start from memory. We found no public information on dependencies or confidence tracking per goal, or on a logged history of goal changes. 1 7 8
The Works Council Member
Objectives cascade from company to department to individual with key results, configurable status or completion percentage, and company-wide reporting; feedback requests go to named colleagues and stored notes and peer insights are explicitly there to prepare the next formal review. Slack delivers objective updates into a channel. We found no public information on logged goal-change history, dependencies, confidence tracking, or which parts of 1:1 notes are private versus shared. 1 7 8
The HR IT Integrator
Cascading objectives tied to team, department and company level, a team dashboard, company-wide reporting by department, status and location, 1:1 templates with shared agendas and action items, and Slack updates when objectives change — the between-cycle layer is there. Notes, milestones and peer insights are stored explicitly to prepare future formal reviews, which is the link I want to see. I found no public information on goal dependencies or confidence tracking, a logged history of goal changes, or a configurable link between goal attainment and ratings. 1 7 8 10
The Skeptic
Objectives cascade from individual to company level, updates flow into Slack in real time, feedback can be requested from named colleagues, and stored notes, milestones and peer insights are explicitly positioned as preparation for the next formal review. I found no public information on dependencies between goals, confidence tracking, or a change history per goal, so this sits one notch below the full record-keeping standard. 7 8 1 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 only development signals are AI that surfaces training needs, a nine-box tied to the review cycle, and AI coaches that can be fed a career matrix; we found no public information on learning paths, course delivery, a skills framework, succession plans per key role, or any learning-platform integration. This product rates people, and the captured pages say little about growing them. 1 6
The Managing Director
There is a nine-box tied to the performance review, AI to surface training needs, and a career matrix you can upload for AI coaching — but that is where development stops. We found no public information on learning paths, course delivery, an LMS integration, skills profiles with gaps, or succession plans per key role; for growing people this is mostly aspiration. 1 6
The People Analyst
The only development material in the captured pages is nine-box placements that can be tied to the review process, an AI claim of uncovering training needs, and a career matrix the customer uploads to configure AI coaches. We found no public information on a skills or competency framework, skills profiles with gaps against role requirements, learning paths or any LMS integration, career paths per role, or succession plans per key role. As the owner of the training budget I cannot plan learning against this, and nothing here is versioned or measured. 1 6
The Works Council Member
The product rates people far more than it develops them: AI is said to uncover training needs, a career matrix can be uploaded into custom AI coaches, and 9-box placements can be tied to the review process. We found no public information on learning paths, a skills or competency framework, development plans, or succession planning for key roles. 1 6
The HR IT Integrator
What I can see is a 9-box tied to the review process, an AI that surfaces training needs, 30-60-90 day onboarding objectives with owners, and the option to upload a career matrix for custom AI coaches. I found no public information on learning paths or course delivery, a skills framework with gap analysis, a named LMS, or succession plans per key role — development here reads as an outgrowth of ratings rather than a programme. 1 6 8
The Skeptic
For a product that rates people, the development side is thin: a nine-box placement tied to the review process and an AI that surfaces training needs are the only visible pieces. We found no public information on development plans, a skills or competency framework, learning content or an LMS integration, career paths, or succession planning for key roles. 6 1
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 role documentation is strong enough to draft a works agreement around: hierarchy restrictions mean even an HR Admin cannot open their own manager's review, cycle visibility supersedes admin rights, private and protected objectives are honoured, and the employee never learns a rating was calibrated. What I cannot put in that agreement: we found no public information on a minimum group size for anonymous survey results, on retention settings for review data, on the model providers behind the AI coaches, or on works council documentation. 10 5 1 11 6
The Managing Director
The roles-and-permissions guide is a concrete visibility rulebook: feedback content only with the author's consent, HR Admins barred from superiors' confidential data, cycle visibility overriding admin rights, and an audit log with defined access. But a works agreement needs more — we found no minimum group size for confidential survey results, no retention setting for review data, and the AI features are described as benefits with no disable option or named provider. 1 10 11
The People Analyst
The per-module permission documentation is close to what a works council can actually negotiate with: who may view, export or delete review and 360 content, cycle visibility superseding admin rights, an audit log, and admin control over whether employees see manager comments before finalisation. Pulse surveys promise confidentiality, but we found no public information on a minimum group size for anonymous results, on configurable retention of review data, or on what each AI feature processes, which provider runs it, or an option to disable it. Full prompt control over custom AI coaches is a promising start, not disclosure. 1 5 6 10 11
The Works Council Member
The visibility matrix is the strongest part: each module documents what HR Admin, HR Assistant and Tech Admin may read, cycle visibility supersedes admin permissions, private objectives and manager reviews stay closed upward in the hierarchy, and audit log access is documented. But pulse surveys are described only as confidential with no stated minimum group size, we found no public information on retention or deletion rules for review data, and the AI features (Objectives Coach, Feedback-into-Action, custom AI coaches) are named without a model provider, a default-off option, or an EU AI Act position. 1 3 6 10
The HR IT Integrator
The permissions documentation is the shape a works agreement needs: a module-by-module matrix of what HR Admins, Assistants and Tech Admins may see, hierarchy restrictions so admins cannot read their superiors' reviews, protected and private objectives, feedback content gated by author consent, and audit log access. Pulse surveys are called confidential with no stated minimum group size, and I found no public information on configurable retention for review data, or on the model provider, inputs or a per-module switch-off for the AI features. 1 5 6 10 11
The Skeptic
The role matrix is unusually concrete for a works agreement — per-module permissions for HR Admin, HR Assistant and Tech Admin, a hard rule that even HR Admins cannot see data above them in the hierarchy, and cycle visibility superseding admin rights. But the anonymity floor goes unstated: we found no public information on a minimum group size for confidential survey results, on retention settings for review data, and the AI coaches are described only as benefits, with no inputs, model provider or off switch stated. 10 11 3 1 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
Portability is designed in: a full XML export of the company database described as usable to populate another system on exit, per-feature exports covering reviews, 360s, objectives, one-to-ones and pulse surveys, plus SSO, Slack, SFTP and a documented REST API with revocable personal tokens. An HRIS integration is administered inside the product, but we found no public information naming the HR systems supported, and none on SCIM provisioning, webhooks or published API limits. 12 11 13 10 7
The Managing Director
Portability is the strength: a full XML export of the company database expressly usable for migration, per-feature exports covering reviews, 360s, objectives, 1:1s and feedback requests, a documented REST API with revocable personal tokens, plus single sign-on and Slack. The HRIS integrations are referenced as a feature but never named, and we found no public information on SCIM provisioning or webhooks. 7 10 12 13
The People Analyst
Export is the strong side: a full XML export of the company database built for migration and GDPR portability, per-feature ZIP exports of reviews, objectives, 1:1s, praise and pulse results, plus a calibration CSV I can analyse outside the tool — exactly what I need. A Swagger-documented REST API with personal access tokens, Slack, single sign-on, and HRIS integration with SFTP and CSV sync complete the picture. We found no public information naming which HR systems are supported, and none on SCIM provisioning, webhooks or published API limits. 2 7 10 12 13
The Works Council Member
Portability is designed in: a documented REST API with revocable personal access tokens, per-feature exports, and a full XML export of the entire company database that the vendor itself says can populate another system if you decide to leave — useful leverage at contract end. The HRIS integration capability is stated but the captured pages name no HR system, and we found no public information on SCIM provisioning, webhooks, or published API rate limits. 2 10 12 13
The HR IT Integrator
The export side is genuinely strong: a full XML export of the company database framed for migration when you leave, per-feature exports for reviews, objectives, 1:1s and feedback in grouped ZIP files, plus a documented Swagger REST API with revocable personal tokens, SSO, Slack and SFTP user sync — not one PDF per person. What I cannot verify is the sync side: the HRIS integration is referenced generically in the entry tier and an admin setting, and I found no public information naming which HRIS systems are supported, on SCIM provisioning, webhooks, or published API limits. 2 7 10 12 13
The Skeptic
Five years of reviews leaving with the customer is the part they get right: a full XML export of the company database, explicitly usable to populate another system, per-feature ZIP exports, a documented REST API with personal access tokens, Slack, SSO, SFTP and CSV import. The integration naming is vaguer — HRIS integrations appear in a tier list without a single named system, and we found no public information on SCIM provisioning, webhooks or published API limits. 12 13 5 10 7 2
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 names Google Ireland in Dublin as the platform host, and the captured pages point to an EU data center alongside the default app region. Beyond that the chain goes dark for a works council: we found no public information confirming the contracting entity's jurisdiction on the vendor's own pages, on a subprocessor list, or on where the AI features process review and feedback data. 3 13
The Managing Director
The platform runs on Google Ireland in Dublin with a separate EU data center, and the customer stays controller of the employee data — a decent start for judgements about people who did not choose the vendor. Beyond that the captured pages go quiet: we found no published subprocessor list, no statement of where the AI features process, no certification, and the contracting entity's jurisdiction is flagged as unconfirmed on the vendor's own captured pages. 3 13
The People Analyst
The platform is stated to be hosted by Google Ireland in Dublin, with an EU data center available alongside the default — that is where the reassurance ends for employment data. We found no public information confirming the contracting entity's jurisdiction on the vendor's own pages, on a subprocessor list beyond the hosting provider, or on where the AI features that suggest objectives and analyse feedback are processed. The GDPR article itself says removal from all related subprocessors requires contacting support, which tells me subprocessors exist but are not published. 3 11 13
The Works Council Member
The platform is stated to be hosted by Google Ireland Ltd. in Dublin, with a separate EU endpoint, and the vendor presents as a Berlin company. We found no published subprocessor list — support must be contacted to be removed from related subprocessors, and no AI provider is named — and no public information on where the AI features run, on a DPA covering employee performance data, or on certification. 3 11 13
The HR IT Integrator
The platform host is named as Google Ireland in Dublin with a separate EU data-center environment, and the vendor presents as a Berlin company. But I found no published subprocessor list, no statement of where the AI features run or which model provider they use, and being removed from subprocessors is described as a support contact rather than a documented flow — for employee performance data, the chain stays half-visible. 3 4 11 13
The Skeptic
The privacy notice names Google Ireland Ltd. in Dublin as the platform host and an EU data center is referenced alongside the default region, and the vendor is described as a Berlin limited company in provenance, though the captured pages do not confirm the contracting entity. We found no public information on subprocessors — the deletion article implies they exist and must be removed via support — or on where the AI coaches process reviews and feedback, which is exactly what an employment-data buyer needs stated. 3 13 4 11
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 page publishes three tiers with their module contents visible, so a buyer can see where reviews, objectives, one-to-ones and pulse surveys sit. But we found no public prices at all, and no pricing basis, minimum term or VAT treatment, so the annual invoice for a given headcount is a sales conversation. 2 7
The Managing Director
The pricing page maps modules to three tiers clearly — essential reviews at the bottom, 360s, objectives, 1:1s and pulse surveys in the middle tier — which is genuinely useful for planning. But we found no public price, pricing basis or minimum term, so the invoice remains a sales conversation and I cannot budget from public pages alone. 2
The People Analyst
Three tiers are published with their feature composition — which of reviews, objectives, 1:1 meetings, pulse surveys and Slack sit where — but not a single figure: we found no public prices, no pricing basis, and no minimum term, headcount or VAT treatment. The 50-to-750-staff positioning tells me the segment, not the invoice; a buyer computes nothing here without a sales conversation, softened only by a free trial and a demo. 2
The Works Council Member
The pricing page names three tiers and lists which modules sit in each, from Essential Performance Reviews up to Advanced Analytics, which at least tells a buyer where surveys and analytics land. We found no price figure, pricing basis, minimum term or VAT treatment on the captured pages, so the annual invoice is not computable and every cost is a sales conversation. 2
The HR IT Integrator
The three tiers show which features land where — essential reviews, praise, directory and HRIS integrations in the entry tier, then 360 feedback, objectives, 1:1s and pulse surveys above that, with all integrations and advanced analytics at the top. But I found no public price figures at all, and no pricing basis, minimum term or add-on pricing, so the annual invoice is a sales conversation. 1 2
The Skeptic
The tier structure is public — Launch, Grow and Elevate each name their modules, so a buyer knows where 360s, objectives, pulse surveys and advanced analytics sit — but that is where computability ends. We found no public information on any price, the pricing basis, minimum term or VAT treatment; a free trial and demo exist, but the annual invoice is a sales conversation. 2 7 6
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 | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Small Improvements
Is Small Improvements European?
Yes. whats-best.ai classifies Small Improvements as EU-Made.
Where does Small Improvements store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Small Improvements have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Small Improvements?
As of 15 Oct 2026, the panel rates Culture Amp (3/5), Leapsome (2.5/5) 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 Leapsome (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Small Improvements 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 — 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.
- 16 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
- 5 integrations facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 5 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
- 2 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
- 2 data 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 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 support 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 (13)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.small-improvements.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page www.small-improvements.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.small-improvements.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Legal notice www.small-improvements.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Performance reviews & calibration — found from sitemap intercomdocs.small-improvements.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Performance reviews & calibration — found from sitemap www.small-improvements.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Goals, OKRs & continuous feedback — found from sitemap www.small-improvements.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Goals, OKRs & continuous feedback — found from sitemap intercomdocs.small-improvements.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Learning, skills & succession — found from sitemap www.small-improvements.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Works council, visibility & AI disclosure — found from sitemap intercomdocs.small-improvements.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Works council, visibility & AI disclosure — found from sitemap intercomdocs.small-improvements.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 HRIS sync, integrations & data portability — found from sitemap intercomdocs.small-improvements.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 HRIS sync, integrations & data portability — found from sitemap intercomdocs.small-improvements.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →