Figures

Name: Figures
Brand: Figures
Rating: 4.3 (9 reviews)

AI Native

Simplify strategic pay decisions with real-time market data, dynamic salary bands and collaborative salary reviews.

Est 2020|Valuation $22.5M|Raised $8.9M

LinkedIn 16K|Web traffic 10K|FTEs 30|HQ Paris, Île-de-France, FR

MarketsPayroll & Compensation Management

Published Sep 30, 2026

01Common complaints

- Organizations that are U.S.-centric and require extensive U.S. regional datasets as the primary benchmark input; at least one reviewer requested more U.S. regions. - Organizations that run complex variable compensation programs (sales commissions, OTE-heavy roles) and require best-in-class modeling and reporting for variable pay. - Organizations that require SOC 2 Type II as a procurement gating item and cannot accept ISO 27001 + SOC 2 Type I; public documentation reviewed emphasizes SOC 2 Type I. - Organizations that require transparent, self-serve pricing to evaluate options quickly; Figures uses a demo/quote-driven pricing model. - Organizations that already standardized on an enterprise HCM suite that provides compensation reviews and pay equity modules tightly integrated into core HR/payroll and prioritize minimizing vendor proliferation. - **Benchmark coverage limitations:** Users requested more U.S. data/regions; another reviewer flagged a tech-sector skew affecting perceived relevance. - **Sales/commission role benchmarking:** At least one user expressed dissatisfaction for sales roles with commissions/OTE. - **Security documentation depth:** While Figures publicly references ISO 27001 and SOC 2 Type I, detailed public security documentation (SSO/SAML/SCIM, audit logs, subprocessor list, pen test summaries) was not readily visible in the sources accessed. - **Pricing transparency:** Quote-based pricing limits quick comparisons.

02Why they buy

- Tooling aligned with EU pay transparency requirements and the EU Pay Transparency Directive timeline (2026). - Public claims of ISO/IEC 27001 certification and SOC 2 Type I compliance. - An integrated workflow from market benchmark data to salary bands, review cycles, and pay equity analysis. **Areas where competitors may have clearer advantages:** - Some U.S.-centric tools provide broader U.S. market coverage and wider ecosystem integrations. - Vendors focused on pay equity analytics may provide more rigorous statistical analysis and governance features.

Why customers chose Figures (inferred from reviews + positioning)

Need for market benchmarks without paying for enterprise survey packs.
Desire to replace spreadsheets with a guided workflow for salary bands and reviews.
EU regulatory urgency (EU pay-transparency efforts) and the need to centralize pay equity analysis.

03Field reports

What customers praise (from review platforms and vendor testimonials)

- **G2 (positive themes):** - Usability and implementation: Reviewers described it as “very easy to use & to implement,” praising breadth of data and features (benchmarking, salary bands, budget calculator) and helpful support/account management. - Support and hands-on team: Reviewers highlighted a "super supportive team" and “great customer support,” plus HRIS integration (e.g., HiBob) to keep employee data updated automatically. - Salary bands and transparency readiness: Reviews and product positioning emphasize salary bands as a source of truth and alignment with salary transparency. - **Vendor site testimonials (vendor-selected):** - Figures’ homepage includes endorsements from People leaders at companies such as Qonto, Malt, Phiture, Duel, and others (claims about data trustworthiness, time savings, and enabling transparent structures). These are directional indicators, but they are selected by the vendor and are not independent evaluations.

What customers criticize / request (from review platforms and community)

- **G2 (critical themes):** - **Data coverage limitations:** Some reviewers requested more U.S. data/regions, suggesting the dataset may skew Europe-centric (consistent with the product’s European positioning). - **Sector skew / relevance doubts:** Some reviewers felt the market benchmark appears heavily focused on the tech sector and raised doubts about the relevance of data for some roles. - **Role-specific gaps:** Some reviewers reported dissatisfaction for sales roles with commissions/OTE, implying the platform may be strongest for standard base-salary roles and less robust for complex variable compensation. - **Feature gaps / roadmap dependence:** Some reviewers noted a missing feature for using Figures as the compensation review tool during performance review cycles (at least at that time), and said the feature was reportedly on the roadmap.

Review-platform availability caveats (important)

Capterra: Figures’ Capterra listing showed no reviews at the time accessed—meaning that platform did not provide social proof during this research.
Gartner Peer Insights / TrustRadius: A dedicated Figures listing/review set was not readily accessible in results during this run. TrustRadius content found was general (methodology PDFs), not Figures-specific reviews.

Why some customers might leave / switch (inferred from recurring complaints)

If an organization requires deep U.S. benchmarking, broader global coverage, or specific regional datasets.
If the organization runs complex sales compensation/commissions and requires a tool centered on variable compensation modeling.
If the organization requires a mature end-to-end total rewards suite (benefits, equity planning, advanced scenario modeling) and prefers a platform positioned for that breadth.

Vendor-published / vendor-hosted case studies (directional, not independently audited)

- Figures’ homepage highlights a customer story: “How HolidayPirates Built Transparent, Data-Backed Salary Bands with Figures.” Details and metrics were not fully extracted in this run due to limited accessible content beyond the headline. - Figures’ content marketing also references customer examples (e.g., Slimmer AI in a workflow article) emphasizing streamlining and time savings. **Critical evaluation:** - These stories are useful for understanding intended workflows (benchmark → bands → reviews → equity), but they are vendor-selected and typically lack rigorous counterfactuals, independent validation, or detailed methodology. - Prospective buyers should request baseline process time, post-implementation measured time saved, error-rate reduction, and auditability improvements with before/after artifacts.

04Best fit

- **Company size (practical buying range):** Typically mid-market to larger organizations per Figures’ referenced positioning; market reviews also include smaller and mid-market users, but the product’s strongest narrative fits organizations whose compensation processes have outgrown spreadsheets. - **Industries:** Tech, venture-backed, fast-growing companies; also applicable to finance/insurance/consulting and other regulated industries. - **Roles & personas:** - Decision makers: VP People/CHRO, Head of Total Rewards/Comp & Ben, CFO/Finance Ops. - End users: Compensation analysts, HRBPs, People Ops, managers participating in salary review workflows. - **Primary pain points:** - Lack of reliable external benchmarks - Inconsistent salary offers and ad hoc negotiations - Salary band creation and governance - Pay equity analysis and transparency reporting readiness - Time drain and version-control issues in spreadsheet-driven review cycles - **Qualification criteria (good fit):** - EU/UK compensation complexity with multi-country benchmarking needs - Appetite for building a formal job architecture and salary bands - Need for auditable compensation workflows - **Deal disqualifiers (poor fit):** - Need for deep U.S. region coverage as the primary benchmark source - Heavy reliance on sales commission plans/OTE modeling as core compensation complexity - Requirement for fully transparent self-serve pricing without sales engagement

05The pitch

- **What the product does (objective):** Figures is a compensation management and pay transparency platform focused on helping organizations benchmark pay using market data, build and maintain salary bands, run compensation review cycles, and analyze pay equity. Its positioning emphasizes readiness for upcoming EU pay-transparency regulations, frequently refreshed market benchmarks, and integrations with HRIS/performance systems to keep employee data current. - **Target market & positioning:** Primarily European mid-market and enterprise HR/People teams (often in tech/startups/scaleups, but marketed beyond tech) needing structured compensation practices, salary band governance, and pay equity reporting—especially in anticipation of EU regulatory requirements. - **Company background (what’s publicly verifiable):** Figures is a France-based (Paris) HR tech company according to third-party company databases. Some corporate details (founding year, leadership roster) are not consistently available without paywalled databases; the vendor site emphasizes product and customer outcomes over corporate bios. - **Funding & growth (high-level):** Third-party databases list Figures as a private company that has completed an early-stage financing round. Detailed investor information and funding specifics are not fully accessible without login to those databases. - **Pricing model (what’s public):** Quote-based. Figures states pricing depends on employee count and selected module(s) and requires booking a demo for a personalized quote. - **Total cost of ownership (TCO) considerations:** - **Implementation/onboarding:** Likely moderate effort if connecting HRIS and cleaning job architecture/levels; typical compensation tools require job catalog alignment, level mapping, and historical pay data normalization. - **Internal time costs:** Compensation is cross-functional (HR + Finance + managers). Running cycles without spreadsheets reduces operational burden, but rollout often requires change management and manager training. - **Potential hidden costs:** Add-on modules, higher pricing for larger headcount, professional services for job leveling/banding design, and the ongoing cost of maintaining a compensation framework (market mapping, governance). - **Key competitors / alternatives (4–6):** - Pave - Comprehensive - Syndio (greater emphasis on pay equity/compliance analytics) - HRsoft Compensation Management - PayScale (a common benchmark/pay analytics alternative) - Large-suite HR platforms with compensation modules (e.g., Workday, SuccessFactors)

Get a comprehensive analysis of Figures including market position, competitive landscape, adoption trends, and peer benchmarks.

Download full report →