HRIS Selection
Performance review software
Compare performance review software by workflow, employee response, visibility and correction paths, with practical checks for Australian employers.
Performance review software helps an employer collect feedback, hold review discussions and keep a record of outcomes. For an Australian employer, choose the review process before comparing forms and dashboards.
The useful questions are what employees will see, how they can respond, who can change a shared review and what happens when a manager changes. Set these requirements before a vendor demonstration.
Map one review from start to finish
Record who sets goals, contributes feedback, drafts the review, releases it to the employee and closes the cycle. Include a changed manager and a disputed comment, then use the same cases to compare products.
| Decision | What to check |
|---|---|
| Review inputs | Can the cycle include only the review types needed? |
| Sharing | Which answers become visible, to whom and when? |
| Employee response | Can the employee comment after seeing the manager’s review? |
| Correction | Who can change a shared review, and can readers identify what changed? |
| Access | What can managers, administrators and export recipients retrieve? |
Features can depend on the package, role and cycle settings. Check the proposed configuration rather than relying on a feature name.
Compare products against that process
Culture Amp Perform covers self-reflection, manager reviews, peer or upward feedback and calibration, with HRBP experiences included in its cycle testing. Its shareable-question feature is available on Culture Amp subscriptions that include Performance.
Performance administrators select shareable questions before a cycle goes live and enable sharing. Peer and upward feedback sharing can be configured separately from manager review sharing.
After a manager review is shared with an employee, the manager can no longer edit it; only a Performance Admin can edit it. Culture Amp’s guidance recommends attributed feedback and suggests sharing qualitative feedback while discussing categorical ratings outside the platform.
15Five Performance Reviews, also called Best-Self Review®, supports any combination of self, manager, peer and upward reviews. A cycle defines participants, review types, a timeline and question templates, and can launch manually or automatically through Lifecycle Reviews.
The feature requires a Perform or Total Platform package. Templates can use 15Five’s defaults or custom questions, while administrators and managers track progress in a central dashboard whose view varies by role.
Performance Ratings+ is an optional component that assigns ratings using a configured rubric and review answers. Administrators can run calibration after reviews are submitted, and the Talent Matrix plots participants by performance and potential using calibrated review data.
Account Admins can choose Basic visibility, which includes the participant, direct manager, cycle collaborators, review viewers and review admins, or Hierarchy visibility, which adds people above the participant in the reporting hierarchy. Settings generally apply to future cycles, not active cycles, unless marked with an asterisk in the interface.
15Five also offers an optional acknowledgement after a manager shares results. It records a timestamp and submitted signature, allows an optional comment, and confirms that results were shared and discussed—not that the employee agrees; an Account Admin must enable it.
Lattice supports annual, quarterly, project-based and automated reviews. It describes customisable templates, automatic rules, mid-cycle adjustments, workflows and dashboards, as well as calibration progress.
Lattice also lists personalised permissions and real-time analytics, including tools to identify top performers, track sentiment trends and pinpoint areas for improvement. Its AI-powered drafts are described as grounded in talent data.
Use Culture Amp if question-level sharing and the post-share administrator edit rule are deciding criteria. Consider 15Five if its package and acknowledgement feature fit, or Lattice if flexible review cadence, workflow and analytics matter most.
The described capabilities do not establish how 15Five handles edits after sharing or how Lattice configures feedback sharing and post-release corrections. Treat those as demonstration checks rather than assumed features.
Compare key features across performance review platforms
- Culture Amp PerformSupports self, manager, peer, upward feedback; question-level sharing; post-share edits only by admin
- 15Five Performance ReviewsFlexible cycles with Best-Self Review®; optional acknowledgement feature; Hierarchy or Basic visibility settings
- LatticeAnnual, quarterly, project-based and automated reviews; AI-powered drafts; real-time analytics and calibration tools
Performance review software capabilities by platform
- Optional components
- 15Five: Competency assessment, manager effectiveness assessment
- Calibration support
- Available in all three platforms
- Visibility settings
- 15Five: Basic or Hierarchy visibility; others not explicitly detailed
Distinguish core functions from add-ons
Check what a product includes in a review cycle and what is optional. 15Five defines a cycle through its participants, review types, timeline and question templates, which can use default or custom questions.
Its review dashboard lets administrators and managers track cycle progress, although the view varies by role. A review-writer resource panel can show the employee’s High Fives, Wins & Challenges, past check-ins, reviews, feedback and career path.
Some capabilities are optional components rather than essentials of every cycle. 15Five lists competency assessment and manager effectiveness assessment as optional sections; results appear in competency reporting, and manager effectiveness assessment data can feed into the Manager Effectiveness Indicator.
Test the proposed configuration before choosing
A demonstration can be supplemented with a test cycle covering different participant experiences. Culture Amp recommends keeping testing in one clearly named test cycle and removing the test data afterwards; a small group of colleagues who know it is a test can experience each role.
Culture Amp requires Performance (Full Permissions) or Account Administrator access to administer a cycle; Performance (Limited Permissions) users can administer only within their assigned demographic scope. For solo testing, its guide suggests creating three to five clearly labelled dummy users.
Assign dummy users different roles, then rotate reporting lines between test passes to experience the employee and manager perspectives. A dummy user in a scoped demographic group can also be used to check the HRBP view.
Dummy accounts need email addresses the tester can access to receive notifications and complete tasks. Include notifications and role-specific tasks in the demonstration, then remove test users and cycle data when testing is finished.
Check the record beyond the review screen
Decide who may access drafts, peer comments, final results, employee responses and exports. Check notifications and reports as well as on-screen permissions, including after a reporting-line change; an exported copy may remain with its recipient after platform access changes.
Use sample reviews to compare an ordinary cycle, a manager change, a disputed comment and a correction after sharing. Record what the vendor demonstrates, any manual step and its owner.
Further reading: Configure basic performance review feature settings (Admin) (success.15five.com).
In this guide
- Comparing review workflows without assuming one method fits allCompare manager, self, peer and rating-based review workflows by purpose, employee effort, visibility and the record each produces.
- Choosing who can see review informationSet review visibility by role, item and stage, then check sharing, exports and manager changes in the proposed platform.
- Recording employee responses to review feedbackCapture an employee’s view of review feedback, distinguish it from acknowledgement, and show how the response was considered.
- Checking whether a platform supports an appeal or correctionCheck how a performance platform handles factual corrections, disputed assessments, escalation and changes after a review is shared.
