whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Talent Management

Small Improvements

EU-Made Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: not determined

0–5 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

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

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

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

Small Improvements alternatives, European ones first →

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

The HR IT Integrator

Weighted verdict

Connects the tool to the HR system and the identity provider and will be asked for the data when the contract ends. Wants org chart and manager relations synced from the HRIS, SSO and SCIM, a documented API, and a full export of reviews and goals rather than one PDF per person.

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

Scored by The HR IT Integrator

Panel median The HR IT Integrator This judge’s scores over the panel median. Each label opens its reasoning below.
Scores per criterion, in stars out of 5
Criterion Panel median The HR IT Integrator
Performance reviews & calibration 4 of 5 3.5 of 5
Goals, OKRs & continuous feedback 3.5 of 5 3.5 of 5
Learning, skills & succession 2 of 5 2 of 5
Works council, visibility & AI disclosure 3 of 5 3 of 5
HRIS sync, integrations & data portability 3.5 of 5 3.5 of 5
European sovereignty 2 of 5 2 of 5
Pricing transparency 1 of 5 1 of 5

Performance reviews & calibration

How this is scored

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

0 — No 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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Goals, OKRs & continuous feedback

How this is scored

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

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

3 — Individual goals with 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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Learning, skills & succession

How this is scored

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

0 — No development features; the product rates people 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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Works council, visibility & AI disclosure

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

HRIS sync, integrations & data portability

How this is scored

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

0 — No HR-system integration 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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

European sovereignty

How this is scored

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

0 — 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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Pricing transparency

How this is scored

Whether a buyer can compute the real annual cost from public pages alone: the pricing basis (per employee, per active user, per module), which of reviews, goals, engagement surveys and learning sit in which tier, add-ons for AI or analytics, and the minimum term.

0 — No public prices at all; every module is a sales conversation.

3 — A 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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

0 of 4 dimensions proven

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

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

Questions about 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

What we left out

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

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

Sources (13)

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

  1. 1 Vendor homepage www.small-improvements.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Pricing page www.small-improvements.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Privacy policy www.small-improvements.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Legal notice www.small-improvements.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Performance reviews & calibration — found from sitemap intercomdocs.small-improvements.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Performance reviews & calibration — found from sitemap www.small-improvements.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Goals, OKRs & continuous feedback — found from sitemap www.small-improvements.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Goals, OKRs & continuous feedback — found from sitemap intercomdocs.small-improvements.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Learning, skills & succession — found from sitemap www.small-improvements.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Works council, visibility & AI disclosure — found from sitemap intercomdocs.small-improvements.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  11. 11 Works council, visibility & AI disclosure — found from sitemap intercomdocs.small-improvements.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  12. 12 HRIS sync, integrations & data portability — found from sitemap intercomdocs.small-improvements.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  13. 13 HRIS sync, integrations & data portability — found from sitemap intercomdocs.small-improvements.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →