Talent Management
Sympa
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Sympa Oy · www.sympa.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.
Sympa at a glance
- Vendor
- Sympa Oy
- 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
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Sympa 2/5, the mean of 6 judges. Sympa, a talent management suite from Sympa Oy of Helsinki, posts persona-weighted totals from 4.0 to 4.8. 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
Sympa, a talent management suite from Sympa Oy of Helsinki, posts persona-weighted totals from 4.0 to 4.8. Its strongest area is learning and development at 6–7, on a shared 1–5 skills scale assessed by HR, managers and employees, training management with attendance and per-employee history, a two-way 360Learning link and 9-grid succession views. Performance reviews and integrations sit at 4 with no spread: a four-page Best Practice review feeding the salary review, and a marketplace of 300-plus integrations with a fully priced SAP link. Pricing transparency is weakest at 2–3 — the model is all-in-one, based on number of employees, but no platform price is public; the only published figures are the SAP integration's 140,00 € monthly charge and 3 024,00 € one-time fee, excluding VAT. The widest spread is codetermination and privacy at 4–6, where an optional, separately agreed Focus AI and consultant-built GDPR removal rules are weighed against no public information on per-role visibility rules, minimum group sizes for anonymous results, or customer log access. Sovereignty runs 3–4: EU/EEA residency is stated, the subprocessor chain is not published.
Speaks for it
- Learning and development is the highest-scoring area at 6–7, with a shared 1–5 skills scale, attendance-tracked training history on profiles, two-way 360Learning sync and 9-grid succession reporting
- The four-page Best Practice review can be swapped for your own review process, draws 9-grid lines on your own metrics, and feeds the salary review
- One-on-ones are kept as a running table with one row per conversation, so previous agreements carry into the year-end review
- The SAP integration is documented to datasets, sync method and scope, and priced at a monthly charge of 140,00 € invoiced annually in advance plus a one-time fee of 3 024,00 €, excluding VAT
- Focus AI is an optional add-on, not enabled by default, requires a separate agreement, and its relevant processing is stated to take place within the European Union
Held against it
- Pricing transparency scores 2–3: no platform price figure is public, complex needs are routed to tailored pricing, and the annual invoice is not computable from public pages
- We found no public information on SSO, SCIM provisioning, a documented API with published limits, or a bulk export of the complete review, goal and feedback history
- We found no public information on the subprocessor list, the AI model provider behind Focus AI, or the contracting entity's jurisdiction
- We found no public information on per-role visibility of review data, a minimum group size for anonymous results, or works-council documentation
- Automatic GDPR data-removal rules are configured together with Sympa's consultants in a 1–2 hour online workshop before you create rules independently
Best for
- You want a year-round review rhythm — goals, check-ins and one-on-one records — that feeds a structured annual and salary review
- Your priority is skills and succession planning, with gap reporting across teams and learning auto-assigned through 360Learning
- You run SAP and need a documented, priced employee-master-file sync via REST API or scheduled daily batch
- You want AI to remain strictly opt-in — Focus AI is off by default and requires a separate agreement
Avoid if
- You need to compute the annual platform invoice before a sales conversation — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You need OKR-style cascading goals across company, team and individual levels — the record here is a conversation table, not an OKR system
- You must present a fully verifiable processing chain to a works council — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Performance reviews & calibration | 2 of 5 |
| Goals, OKRs & continuous feedback | 2 of 5 |
| Learning, skills & succession | 3.5 of 5 |
| Works council, visibility & AI disclosure | 2.5 of 5 |
| HRIS sync, integrations & data portability | 2 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
A Best Practice review with four dedicated pages guides employees and managers through achievements, goals and development plans, the existing review process can be connected instead, and the 9-grid maps performance against potential with lines drawn on our own metrics — a fixed structure with self and manager input, and more than a bare template. But I found no public information on configurable rating scales, 360° input, employee sign-off, reminders and deadlines, or a documented rule for what the employee, manager and HR can each see, which is what I need to defend every rating in the cycle. 7 3 6
The Managing Director
The four-page Best Practice review guiding employees and managers through achievements, goals and personalised development plans, feeding into a salary review and a 9-grid view of performance against potential, is a genuine yearly conversation rather than an improvised form. We found no public information on configurable rating scales, 360° input, employee sign-off, calibration across teams, or what the employee, manager and HR can each see. The scores I can see are the 9-grid format, drawn on your own metrics. 7 6 3
The People Analyst
The Best Practice review is a fixed four-page template that employees and managers work through for achievements, goals and development plans, inside a year-round rhythm of goal setting, progress checks and a year-end conversation whose results feed the salary review. The 9-grid can be connected to an existing review process and scored on your own metrics, but we found no public information on configurable rating scales, 360° input, calibration across teams with rating distributions, or who may see which part of the review. 3 6 7
The Works Council Member
The best-practice review runs four pages walking employee and manager through achievements, goals and a personal development plan, the nine-box can draw its lines on our own metrics, and last year's results feed the salary review. But I found no public information on 360° input, calibration across teams, employee sign-off, or any rule stating what the employee, manager and HR may each read in a finished review. 3 6 7
The HR IT Integrator
The Best Practice review is a real structured process — four pages guiding employee and manager through achievements, goals and development plans, connectable to the 9-grid and feeding the salary review — and you can connect your own review process and draw the grid lines to your own metrics. But we found no public information on 360-degree input, calibration with rating distributions across teams, configurable rating scales, or who may see the completed review. 3 6 7
The Skeptic
The captured pages show a four-page best-practice review guiding employees and managers through achievements, goals and development plans, a year-end conversation, and a 9-grid whose lines you can draw on your own metrics, with evaluation results feeding the salary review. But we found no public information on configurable rating scales, 360° input, calibration across teams, employee sign-off, or who may see which part of the review. 3 6 7
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
Goals are set against shared objectives, regular check-ins are explicitly combined with annual reviews, achievements and feedback are recorded throughout the year, and the one-on-one table keeps a row per conversation so past agreements survive — the year-end review genuinely draws on the record rather than memory. I found no public information on goal cascading across company, team and individual levels, feedback requests to named colleagues, logged goal changes, or check-ins inside Microsoft Teams or Slack. 3 6 8
The Managing Director
The year-round record is what I buy for: goals with development plans, regular check-ins to adjust them, achievements and feedback captured through the year, one-on-ones kept as a table with a new row per conversation, and last year's evaluation results feeding the salary review. We found no public information on goals at company, team and individual level, on alignment or cascading, on feedback requests to named colleagues, or on check-ins inside Microsoft Teams or Slack. The one-on-one feature is described as an informal table for tracking previous agreements rather than a structured shared agenda. 3 8 6
The People Analyst
Goals are aligned to shared objectives, progress is checked through the year, one-on-ones live in a shared table that keeps every conversation and agreement, and results from the year feed the year-end and salary reviews rather than starting from memory. We found no public information on cascading to company, team and individual levels, on logged goal history, or on feedback requests to named colleagues, and no collaboration-tool check-in integrations are shown. 3 6 8
The Works Council Member
Goals with development plans, regular check-ins, and one-on-ones recorded as one table row per conversation so previous agreements stay visible, with the year-end review drawing on the year-round record. We found no public information on goal cascading, change history, or whether one-on-one notes carry a private part the manager alone controls. 3 6 8
The HR IT Integrator
Goals aligned to shared objectives, regular check-ins with goal adjustment, and one-on-ones kept as a running table of agreements all combine with the annual review, so the year-end conversation draws on records made through the year. We found no public information on cascading with dependencies, goal-change history, feedback requests to named colleagues, or check-ins inside Microsoft Teams or Slack. 3 6 8
The Skeptic
Goals are set around shared objectives with personal development plans, regular check-ins are explicitly combined with the annual review, and one-on-ones live as a running table with a row per conversation that keeps previous agreements on record. We found no public information on cascading across company, team and individual levels, goal-change history, or feedback requests to named colleagues — the year-end record is drawn from a well-kept table rather than an OKR system. 3 6 8
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
Skills are assessed on a shared 1-5 scale with gap identification and reporting across teams, roles and departments, completed trainings sit on employee profiles, 360Learning is integrated both ways with achievements and certifications syncing back, and the 9-grid surfaces succession risks alongside high performers. I found no public information on learning paths with mandatory training, succession coverage reported per key role, or internal mobility shown against open positions. 10 9 3 7
The Managing Director
This is the strongest area: Skills assesses skill sets on a shared 1–5 scale by HR, managers and employees, identifies gaps for hiring and development, reports competence across teams, roles and departments, and trainings are created, attended and recorded on employee profiles, with 360Learning assigning courses from HR data and syncing achievements and certifications back. The 9-grid maps performance against future potential and highlights succession gaps for talent planning. We found no public information on learning paths with mandatory training, succession plans per key role, internal mobility against open positions, or career paths per role. 10 9 6 3
The People Analyst
Skills profiles on a shared 1–5 scale with gaps against roles, training management with attendance and a per-employee training history, a two-way 360Learning link that auto-assigns learning and syncs achievements and certifications back to profiles, and the nine-box with succession gaps — that is most of what I look for in a development stack. We found no public information on learning paths as such, mandatory training, succession coverage and risk per key role, internal mobility against open positions, or export of certificates and training records. 6 7 9 10
The Works Council Member
Skills are assessed on a shared 1–5 scale in defined skill sets with gap and cross-team reporting, trainings carry attendance and a history on the employee profile, 360Learning assigns learning from HR data and syncs achievements and certifications back, and the nine-box supports succession planning. I found no public information on internal mobility against open positions or succession plans maintained per key role. 3 9 10
The HR IT Integrator
Skills sets assessed on a shared 1-5 scale by HR, managers and employees with gap reporting, training management with attendance and per-employee training history, a named LMS in 360Learning that auto-assigns learning from HR data and syncs achievements and certifications back to profiles, plus the 9-grid for talent and succession planning. We found no public information on internal mobility against open positions, SCORM or xAPI content, or exportable training records and certificates. 6 9 10
The Skeptic
Skills are assessed by HR, managers and employees on a shared 1-5 scale with gap identification, the 9-grid maps succession risk, and 360Learning assigns learning from HR data while achievements and certifications sync back to employee profiles with attendance and training history stored. We found no public information on career paths per role, internal mobility against open positions, mandatory training, or exportable certificates and training records. 3 6 9 10
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
Focus AI is named with its inputs, is an optional add-on that is not enabled by default and requires a separate agreement, runs its processing within the European Union under existing tenant and access-control rules, and GDPR-compliant data removal rules can be configured with vendor consultants — better AI disclosure than I usually see. I found no public information on visibility rules per role for review data, a configurable minimum group size for anonymous results, or documentation aimed at a works council, and customer-facing log export is described as not available. 12 11
The Managing Director
Focus AI is disclosed better than most: an optional add-on, off by default, requiring a separate agreement, clearly identified in the interface, running under existing tenant and access-control rules without direct access to the HR database, with relevant processing within the European Union. Automatic GDPR-compliant data removal rules exist but are described as being created together with Sympa's consultants in a 1–2 hour workshop — in a sixty-person company I want to set and forget that myself. We found no public information on visibility rules per role for review data, a minimum group size for anonymous results, works-council documentation, or customer-facing log access and export. 12 11 4
The People Analyst
Focus AI is the one AI feature spelled out — an optional add-on, off by default, requiring a separate agreement, working only on structured data already in the system, with EU processing and users informed — and retention can be configured through GDPR-compliant automatic data removal rules built with Sympa's consultants. For the rest of a works agreement we found no public information on visibility rules per role for review data, a minimum group size for anonymous feedback, works-council documentation, or the EU AI Act position, and the captured pages do not show customer-facing access-log export. 4 11 12
The Works Council Member
Focus AI is the best-documented part: an optional add-on that is off by default, requires a separate agreement, is identified to users, never connects directly to the HR database, and processes within the EU, and GDPR-compliant data removal rules are configurable with consultant support. But we found no public information on an anonymity threshold for survey or feedback results, on field-level visibility rules, or on customer access to audit logs — all things a works agreement needs. 4 11 12
The HR IT Integrator
Automatic GDPR data-removal rules can be configured with consultant support, retention is capped at four years, and Focus AI is an optional add-on, not enabled by default, requiring a separate agreement, with its data domains, access rules and EU processing described — genuinely usable material for a works agreement. But we found no public information on visibility rules per role for review data, anonymity thresholds, or customer-facing access to audit logs, and the AI model provider behind Focus AI is not named. 4 11 12
The Skeptic
Focus AI is better disclosed than most: an optional add-on, off by default under a separate agreement, querying only structured criteria the user can already see, with EU processing stated and users informed in the interface. But the works-council core is thin — we found no public information on a minimum group size for anonymous results, per-role visibility of review data, or works-agreement material — retention relies on consultant-built GDPR removal rules and a four-year cap, and customer log access is only noted as to be described separately where available. 4 11 12
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
A marketplace with 300+ integrations, connections to 40+ payroll providers, and a SAP integration syncing the employee master file via REST API or scheduled daily batch show real, named connectivity next to the system of record. I found no public information on SSO, SCIM provisioning, a documented API with published limits, Microsoft Teams or Slack integration, or a bulk export of the complete review, goal and feedback history — and the history leaving with me at contract end is the part I care about. 1 2 14 13
The Managing Director
The SAP integration is named and priced: employee master file including employment, organisation and cost centre, via REST API or scheduled daily batch delta CSV to SFTP, at a monthly charge of 140,00 € invoiced annually in advance with a one-time fee of 3 024,00 €, and a 360Learning link syncs both ways. The headline counts — 300+ integrations and 40+ payroll providers — are numbers rather than names, and the SAP scope covers one Sympa entity to one SAP entity. We found no public information on sync with Personio, SAP SuccessFactors or HRworks, on SSO or SCIM, or on export of the full review, goal and feedback history. 14 1 2 9
The People Analyst
The SAP integration carries the employee master file over a REST API or a daily batch, more than 300 integrations and 40-plus payroll providers are claimed, and learning data flows both ways with 360Learning. We found no public information on SSO or SCIM provisioning, a documented API with published limits, webhooks, or a bulk export of the complete review, goal and feedback history — which is exactly what I need to analyse talent data outside the tool. 2 9 13 14
The Works Council Member
Three hundred plus integrations including over forty payroll providers, a SAP integration syncing the employee master file daily via REST API or batch CSV to SFTP, and a two-way 360Learning link are evidenced. We found no public information on SSO or SCIM, a publicly documented API with limits, or a bulk export of the complete review, goal and feedback history. 2 13 14
The HR IT Integrator
A marketplace with 300-plus integrations, 40-plus payroll providers, a fully priced SAP integration moving the employee master file including organisation and cost centre via REST API or daily SFTP delta, and 360Learning sync give this a real ecosystem, and Sympa is itself the system of record so org data is native. But I found no public information on SSO, SCIM provisioning, published API documentation and limits, webhooks, or a structured bulk export of the complete review, goal and feedback history — exactly what I would be asked for at contract end. 1 2 9 13 14
The Skeptic
Three hundred plus integrations and forty plus payroll connections are claimed, the SAP integration is documented down to datasets, sync methods and fees, and 360Learning syncs assignments out and achievements back. We found no public information on SSO, SCIM provisioning, a documented API with published limits, or an export that takes the full review, goal and feedback history with the customer at contract end. 1 9 13 14
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 notice states the physical location of personal data is within the EU/EEA, Focus AI processing takes place within the European Union, and the vendor shows offices in Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark. However, the captured pages do not confirm the contracting entity or ownership, and I found no public subprocessor list or published certification, so parts of the chain cannot be verified from what is published. 4 12 5
The Managing Director
The privacy notice states personal data stays in the EU/EEA, Focus AI's relevant processing takes place within the European Union, and offices are in Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark. We found no public information confirming the contracting entity's jurisdiction, the subprocessor list including any AI provider, or ownership. An EU data location with an unnamed chain is not something I would put in front of a works council. 4 12 5
The People Analyst
The privacy notice places personal data in the EU/EEA and Focus AI processing within the European Union, and the vendor operates from Finland with Nordic offices. The contracting entity is not confirmed on the captured pages and no subprocessor list including AI providers is published, and for a system holding judgements about named employees that unpublished chain is the decisive gap. 4 5 12
The Works Council Member
The vendor presents itself as Finnish with Nordic offices, the privacy notice places personal data physically in the EU/EEA, and Focus AI processing is stated to take place in the EU. However, the contracting entity's jurisdiction is not confirmed on the captured pages, product hosting is otherwise unstated, and no subprocessor list naming the AI provider is published. 4 5 12
The HR IT Integrator
The privacy notice places personal data physically in the EU/EEA, Focus AI processing runs within the European Union, and the vendor operates from Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark. But we found no public information on the subprocessor list, the AI model provider behind Focus AI, the named hosting infrastructure, or a published certification, so the chain that touches employee performance data stays invisible. 4 5 12
The Skeptic
The privacy notice puts personal data physically in the EU/EEA, the vendor is a Finnish company with Nordic offices, and Focus AI processing is stated to run within the EU. But we found no public information on a product subprocessor list, the AI model provider behind Focus AI, named hosting infrastructure, or published certifications, and the contracting entity's jurisdiction is not confirmed on the captured pages. 4 5 12
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 states an all-in-one model based on number of employees, and the SAP integration is priced publicly at 140,00 € monthly plus a 3 024,00 € one-time fee, invoiced annually in advance with prices excluding VAT. No platform price per employee is published anywhere I can see, and complex needs go to tailored pricing, so a buyer cannot compute the real annual invoice from the public pages alone. 2 14
The Managing Director
The model is stated as all-in-one and based on your number of employees, with tailored solutions and pricing for complex needs, and the one add-on priced publicly is the SAP integration at a monthly charge of 140,00 € plus a one-time fee of 3 024,00 €, with all prices excluding VAT. We found no public per-employee figure, so the annual invoice is a sales conversation. We found no public information on which modules sit in which tier, minimum term, or minimum headcount. 2 14
The People Analyst
The pricing basis is stated — all-in-one, based on number of employees — and the SAP integration is priced publicly at a monthly charge of 140,00 € plus a one-time fee of 3 024,00 €, invoiced annually in advance and excluding VAT. No platform price figure, module tiering, minimum term or minimum headcount is published, so the annual invoice for a given headcount cannot be computed from public pages. 2 14
The Works Council Member
The pricing basis is stated — all-in-one pricing based on number of employees — but no per-employee price is public and the page routes to an ROI calculator and demo booking, so the annual invoice for the platform itself is not computable. The one fully published price is the SAP integration at "140,00 €" monthly (invoiced annually in advance, twelve months' fees) plus a "3 024,00 €" one-time fee, all excluding VAT. 2 14
The HR IT Integrator
The pricing basis is stated — all-in-one, based on number of employees — but no price figure for the product itself is public, and complex needs are met with tailored pricing, so the core annual invoice is not computable. The only published figures I found are the SAP integration at a monthly charge of 140,00 € invoiced annually in advance plus a one-time fee of 3 024,00 €, all excluding VAT, while the Focus AI add-on carries no public price. 2 12 14
The Skeptic
The pricing basis is stated — all-in-one, based on number of employees — and the SAP integration is priced exactly: monthly charge 140,00 €, invoiced annually in advance, one-time fee 3 024,00 €, all prices exclude VAT. But the per-employee price itself is not published, we found no public information on Focus AI, module or survey pricing, minimum term or minimum headcount, and complex needs are routed to tailored pricing — the real invoice is not computable from public pages. 2 14
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 ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Sympa
Is Sympa European?
Yes. whats-best.ai classifies Sympa as EU-Made.
Where does Sympa 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 Sympa have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Sympa?
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: Sympa 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 — Subprocessors, Legal entity. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- 10 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
- 8 pricing facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 4 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
- 2 legal facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 subprocessors facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 compliance 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 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 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
- 2 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (14)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.sympa.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page www.sympa.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Performance management www.sympa.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Privacy policy www.sympa.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Company details www.sympa.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Performance reviews & calibration — found from sitemap www.sympa.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Performance reviews & calibration — found from sitemap www.sympa.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Goals, OKRs & continuous feedback — found from sitemap www.sympa.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Learning, skills & succession — found from sitemap www.sympa.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Learning, skills & succession — found from sitemap www.sympa.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Works council, visibility & AI disclosure — found from sitemap www.sympa.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Works council, visibility & AI disclosure — found from sitemap www.sympa.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 HRIS sync, integrations & data portability — found from sitemap www.sympa.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 HRIS sync, integrations & data portability — found from sitemap www.sympa.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →