Performance reviews and OKRs without the ceremony

Companies that have decided how they want to run reviews and need the machinery to run them, rather than companies looking for a methodology. It ships cycles, forms, scales and goal vocabularies as your own data and no opinion about how performance should be managed, which makes it a good fit for a team that already knows its cadence and a poor fit for a team hoping the software will decide. It is most useful once managers and reports are modelled in the org chart, because the module derives who reviews whom from that structure rather than asking you to maintain a second list.

A paid plan, which turns the whole platform on at once: the modules come with a paid plan and the free plan carries none of them, so a free workspace is shown an upgrade prompt rather than a subscription starting quietly underneath it. Then your org structure needs to be accurate, because manager reach is derived from it rather than assigned separately. The configuration itself is all self-serve tenant data: your rating scale, your review form questions, the cycle and its timeline of self-assessment window, manager window and acknowledgment, who may set goals (employee, manager or both), when a self-assessment becomes visible to the manager, whether a review releases automatically on close or explicitly, and which reminder notices are on. Required vocabularies seed themselves, so an empty workspace is usable before you have configured anything. The real work is agreeing the questions and the scale, which is a conversation rather than a configuration task.

No AI writes, summarises or scores a review of a person, and no algorithm produces a rating: a manager sets one overall rating on your own scale. There are no calibration sessions, no forced distributions and no stack ranking. There is no 360 or peer feedback, no praise wall and no meeting tooling for one-to-ones. There is no automated compensation outcome: a rating is readable by compensation-capability holders for their own process, and nothing here writes a raise. There is no succession planning and no dedicated performance-improvement-plan machinery, though a plan is representable as a goal set. OKR trees stop at a single optional parent link; there is nothing deeper.

It sits directly on the core’s org structure and permission scoping: managers reach their own reports because the org chart says so, not because someone maintained a reviewer list. It uses the core’s acknowledgment mechanic for the employee sign-off at the end of a cycle, the core notification ladder for reminders, and the core report registry for its reporting. It requires no other module. Its relationship with Compensation & Equity is deliberately one-directional and manual: a rating can be read by someone with compensation clearance while they run a revision, and nothing here writes a pay change. If Advanced Analytics is enabled, cycle completion data can be composed into a dashboard, still under the viewer’s own permissions.

Cycles, forms, assessments and goals stop being reachable, and because the module is part of your plan there is no separate charge to stop. The data is not deleted: it is retained on a schedule, and re-enabling within that window restores it as it was, including closed cycles and their ratings. A full workspace export includes module data whether or not the module is currently enabled, so a review history is never trapped behind an entitlement. Nothing in the free core changes, because reviews were never part of it.

No. It is included in your plan at no extra charge and adds nothing to your invoice, whatever your headcount. The only charge on your account is the plan per-seat rate on your employees past the first twenty. Participants in a given cycle are a separate matter entirely from billing: they are snapshotted from your chosen org scope when the cycle is activated, and someone joining after that is next cycle’s problem rather than being added mid-flight.