365Talents

Name: 365Talents
Brand: 365Talents

Adaptive Skills & Talent Intelligence for ambitious HR.

Est 2015|Valuation $61.3M|Raised $14.8M|15 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 9K|Web traffic 20K|FTEs 62|HQ Lyon, Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, FR

MarketsCareer Pathing & Succession Planning HR Analytics & Workforce Planning

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Areas of relative strength: - Multilingual capabilities are emphasized in vendor materials. - The vendor cites notable enterprise customers and positive user review sentiment on public review platforms. - Security posture references SOC 2 and AI governance standards. Where competitors may be stronger: - Suite vendors (Workday, SAP, Oracle) may provide tighter native HR suite integration for customers already using those suites. - Talent-acquisition-first vendors (e.g., Eightfold) may offer broader external recruiting and CRM capabilities for buyers who need end-to-end TA plus internal mobility. Docebo acquisition impact (competition and roadmap): - The acquisition suggests increasing alignment between the vendor's skills intelligence capabilities and learning/workforce readiness workflows in Docebo's roadmap. - Buyers that require a neutral standalone solution should clarify future packaging and integration plans to understand any potential vendor coupling.

	365Talents	Gloat	Fuel50
Starting Price	Quote-based (contact vendor)	Quote-based (no public list price)	Quote-based (contact vendor)
Typical Fit	Enterprises prioritizing skills inference and an internal mobility marketplace, especially multilingual/global organizations	Enterprises seeking a broad talent marketplace across gigs, roles, mentoring, and analytics	Organizations emphasizing career pathing and skills architecture with configurable modules
Key Strength	Skills mapping and multilingual positioning; the vendor references SOC 2 and AI governance (ISO) compliance	Mature marketplace functionality and broad market presence	Modular packaging and career pathing features focused on employee experience
Key Weakness	Some user feedback indicates limitations in integration supervision and administrative ergonomics; pricing not transparent	Enterprise/quote-based model and implementation effort common to the category	Public pricing not explicit; complex global skills taxonomies may require careful scoping

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Areas of relative strength:

Multilingual capabilities are emphasized in vendor materials.
The vendor cites notable enterprise customers and positive user review sentiment on public review platforms.
Security posture references SOC 2 and AI governance standards.

Where competitors may be stronger:

Suite vendors (Workday, SAP, Oracle) may provide tighter native HR suite integration for customers already using those suites.
Talent-acquisition-first vendors (e.g., Eightfold) may offer broader external recruiting and CRM capabilities for buyers who need end-to-end TA plus internal mobility.

Docebo acquisition impact (competition and roadmap):

The acquisition suggests increasing alignment between the vendor's skills intelligence capabilities and learning/workforce readiness workflows in Docebo's roadmap.
Buyers that require a neutral standalone solution should clarify future packaging and integration plans to understand any potential vendor coupling.

	365Talents	Gloat	Fuel50
Starting Price	Quote-based (contact vendor)	Quote-based (no public list price)	Quote-based (contact vendor)
Typical Fit	Enterprises prioritizing skills inference and an internal mobility marketplace, especially multilingual/global organizations	Enterprises seeking a broad talent marketplace across gigs, roles, mentoring, and analytics	Organizations emphasizing career pathing and skills architecture with configurable modules
Key Strength	Skills mapping and multilingual positioning; the vendor references SOC 2 and AI governance (ISO) compliance	Mature marketplace functionality and broad market presence	Modular packaging and career pathing features focused on employee experience
Key Weakness	Some user feedback indicates limitations in integration supervision and administrative ergonomics; pricing not transparent	Enterprise/quote-based model and implementation effort common to the category	Public pricing not explicit; complex global skills taxonomies may require careful scoping