Together

• If a full talent suite is required (performance management, compensation, recruiting, skills marketplace) and the organization seeks to minimize point solutions—consider integrated HCM or LMS/LXP vendors that include mentoring capabilities.
• If advanced, highly configurable reporting is the core requirement: other vendors may offer deeper analytics configurability.
• If the user base requires native, Outlook-first scheduling workflows without friction: calendar integration behavior should be validated in product demonstrations.
• If the procurement size is very small: the stated minimums may not be cost-effective.
• If the organization requires extensive published security detail upfront: the vendor states SOC 2 Type II and GDPR compliance, but detailed audit artifacts and architecture specifics may require an NDA and additional security review.

• Ease of use and session structure: Several user reviews praise the platform’s agendas and topic templates, and users note the ability to edit topics and meeting plans to suit participants’ needs.
• Support quality: Some reviewers specifically describe Sales and Support as responsive and helpful.
• Program monitoring and tracking: Review excerpts describe the platform as practical for monitoring mentoring processes and associated steps.
• Scale and participation outcomes: Vendor-published case study materials report large-scale engagement for some customers; such materials are useful but are vendor-supplied.

• Reporting customization limitations: Multiple reviewers indicate reporting could be more customizable for complex program needs.
• Notification volume: Some users report the notification cadence can be too frequent or redundant.
• Calendar / scheduling friction: Several users note calendar integration and scheduling workflows can be inconvenient, particularly for Outlook-centric workflows.
• Perceived value for money: In some end-user reviews, value-for-money scores are lower than overall satisfaction, suggesting differences between end-user perceptions and procurement-level value calculations.

Claimed outcomes (vendor-published):

• Vendor reports engagement from a sizeable portion of the workforce.
• Reported participation exceeded the program's initial target by a material margin.
• Reported very high mentee and mentor feedback scores.

Critical evaluation:

• These metrics indicate high reported engagement and satisfaction for the documented program but do not provide methodology details such as survey response rates, baseline comparisons, or timeframes. Procurement teams should request underlying measurement methodologies and representative customer reference conversations.

Together is an enterprise mentorship and employee-connection platform used to design, launch, and run structured mentoring and connection programs (e.g., 1:1 mentoring, group mentoring, “coffee chats,” onboarding buddies). Core functionality typically includes participant registration/intake, automated or rules-based matching, scheduling support (calendar integrations), guided agendas/content, nudges/reminders, and dashboards/reporting for program administrators.

The vendor describes the product as a "best-practice" mentoring solution and states that it reduces manual administration and increases adoption and engagement through workflow automation, embedded content, and implementation support. These are vendor claims and should be validated in procurement and pilot phases.

Important naming ambiguity: there is a separate company/product called “Together AI” (a different vendor focused on generative-AI infrastructure) that can appear in marketplace listings under a similar name. This report refers exclusively to Together, the mentorship platform.

• Primary buyer: HR / Learning & Development (L&D) / Talent Development / DEI teams running internal mentoring at mid-market to large enterprises.
• Positioning: Vendor messaging emphasizes enterprise mentorship at scale and highlights ease of use, program templates, matching, and white‑glove-style implementation support (vendor phrasing).
• Typical org size: The vendor’s accelerator profile highlights targeting mid-market and larger companies.