Reflektive

Name: Reflektive
Brand: Reflektive

Performance management matters, always.

Est 2014|Valuation $14.2M|Raised $103.1M|52 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 15K|Web traffic 12K|FTEs 71|HQ San Francisco, California, US

MarketsPerformance Management

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

- UX and adoption: In review-platform comparisons, 15Five is often described as more modern and user-friendly than Reflektive, with stronger adoption outcomes reported in some reviews. Reflektive’s relative value is more dependent on the extent to which an organization uses recognition and feedback features. - Pricing transparency: Competitors that publish pricing simplify budgeting and procurement; Reflektive’s quote-based approach increases uncertainty and may lengthen evaluation cycles. - Depth vs simplicity: Some reviewers position Reflektive as suitable for recognition and straightforward workflows but less strong for full performance management depth.

When customers choose competitors instead

Buyers seeking advanced performance review workflows, calibration, analytics, and detailed admin controls often shortlist vendors such as Lattice, Culture Amp, or Leapsome. Organizations prioritizing manager rituals and adoption frequently consider 15Five.

	Reflektive	Lattice	15Five
Starting Price	Quote-based / not publicly standardized; third-party sites provide only estimated ranges	Public pricing: modular, published on the vendor site; additional modules and minimums can apply	Public pricing: published by the vendor and varies by plan and module
Best For	Organizations prioritizing recognition and continuous feedback/check-ins within a single platform; mid-market and enterprise	Mid-market/enterprise buyers seeking a modern UX with clear packaging and a broad performance suite	Teams emphasizing manager effectiveness, weekly check-ins, and ongoing engagement rituals
Key Strength	Recognition and feedback features; reported integrations with email/chat; goal visibility	Transparent packaging; broad feature suite and integrations; strong market adoption in reviews	High user satisfaction and reputation for user-friendly workflows on review sites
Key Weakness	Recurring reviewer comments about dated or clunky UX, admin limitations, adoption challenges, and pricing opacity	Cost can increase as modules are added; contractual minimums can apply	Some advanced enterprise processes require higher tiers; fit varies for large compliance-focused organizations

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

UX and adoption: In review-platform comparisons, 15Five is often described as more modern and user-friendly than Reflektive, with stronger adoption outcomes reported in some reviews. Reflektive’s relative value is more dependent on the extent to which an organization uses recognition and feedback features.
Pricing transparency: Competitors that publish pricing simplify budgeting and procurement; Reflektive’s quote-based approach increases uncertainty and may lengthen evaluation cycles.
Depth vs simplicity: Some reviewers position Reflektive as suitable for recognition and straightforward workflows but less strong for full performance management depth.

When customers choose competitors instead

	Reflektive	Lattice	15Five
Starting Price	Quote-based / not publicly standardized; third-party sites provide only estimated ranges	Public pricing: modular, published on the vendor site; additional modules and minimums can apply	Public pricing: published by the vendor and varies by plan and module
Best For	Organizations prioritizing recognition and continuous feedback/check-ins within a single platform; mid-market and enterprise	Mid-market/enterprise buyers seeking a modern UX with clear packaging and a broad performance suite	Teams emphasizing manager effectiveness, weekly check-ins, and ongoing engagement rituals
Key Strength	Recognition and feedback features; reported integrations with email/chat; goal visibility	Transparent packaging; broad feature suite and integrations; strong market adoption in reviews	High user satisfaction and reputation for user-friendly workflows on review sites
Key Weakness	Recurring reviewer comments about dated or clunky UX, admin limitations, adoption challenges, and pricing opacity	Cost can increase as modules are added; contractual minimums can apply	Some advanced enterprise processes require higher tiers; fit varies for large compliance-focused organizations