HR AI Index
Index › Performance and talent management › Goals and OKRs › Tability vs Leapsome
Goals and OKRs · September 2026 Edition

Tability vs Leapsome

Nine of twelve models named Tability first on the direct prompt; zero named Leapsome. Tability was named by eleven of the twelve models and Leapsome by eleven and Tability carries 44 labels and Leapsome 20, so the shares are not directly comparable.

Tability

accepted challenger

Named in one category this edition.

Leapsome

accepted challenger

Named in thirteen categories this edition.

First-choice share29%4%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate0%5%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#1#7A position in a field of 17; printed, not drawn.
Labels4420A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Tability reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Perdoo was named alongside these two in eleven of the twelve direct answers. Tability vs Lattice · Tability vs Mooncamp · Tability vs OKRs Tool

Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all twelve models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the goals and okrs page.

By framing

How many of the twelve models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
TabilityFirst choices, of twelve modelsLeapsome
Direct90
Paraphrase12
Comparative40
Budget-constrained20
Scale-constrained10
Negative101 against Leapsome
Bars are first choices, 0 to 12 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to twelve.

Every model, every framing

The seventy-two answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Tability and Leapsome stood in it.
ModelDirectParaphraseComparativeBudget-constrainedScale-constrainedNegative
Claude Haiku 4.5
GPT-5.4 mini
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Perplexity Sonar
Grok 4.1 Fast
Mistral Small
DeepSeek V4 Flash
Llama 4 Maverick
Qwen 3.7 Flash
Kimi K2
GLM 4.7 FlashX
MiniMax M2.5
Tability Leapsome first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Tability on the left and Leapsome on the right.

The direct prompt

The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Tability and Leapsome stood in it.

Tability first, Leapsome an alternative

9 of 12 modelsLeapsome was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.
Gemini 3.5 FlashTability alternatives: 15Five, Lattice, Leapsome, Mooncamp, Perdoo, Profit.co, Synergita, Teamflect
Perplexity SonarTability alternatives: Lattice, Mooncamp, Perdoo, Quantive
Grok 4.1 FastTability alternatives: Mooncamp, Perdoo, Profit.co
Mistral SmallMooncamp, Tability alternatives: FlowyTeam, Perdoo
DeepSeek V4 FlashTability alternatives: Mooncamp, Perdoo, Profit.co
Llama 4 MaverickTability alternatives: FlowyTeam, Mooncamp, Perdoo
Qwen 3.7 FlashMooncamp, Tability alternatives: Perdoo, WorkBoard
Kimi K2Mooncamp, Tability alternatives: Perdoo, Profit.co
GLM 4.7 FlashXTability alternatives: Mooncamp, Perdoo

Neither was the first choice, one was named

3 of 12 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.
Claude Haiku 4.5Mooncamp alternatives: Leapsome, Tability
GPT-5.4 miniPerdoo alternatives: Asana, Lattice, Leapsome, WorkBoard
MiniMax M2.5Mooncamp alternatives: Perdoo, Tability

Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.

By buyer segment

The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment and they are never added together. The figures above are the mid-market standing, which is the one the category orders by.
Small business
Tability leads by thirty-seven points.
Tability37%#1 of 13
Leapsome0%#– of 13
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
Tability leads by twenty-four points.
Tability29%#1 of 17
Leapsome4%#7 of 17
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
Tability leads by six points.
Tability6%#4 of 13
Leapsome0%#– of 13
The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about Tability

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of four in this category shown.

“Tability is built to solve the execution gap. It is highly recommended for Operations, Chiefs of Staff, or business leaders” Gemini 3.5 Flash · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“The best OKR software for a company with a limited budget is Tability, which ranks first in a comparison of 12 tools.” Llama 4 Maverick · budget prompt · first choice
“a lightweight dedicated tool (Tability, Weekdone, Mooncamp) is justified; ... Profit.co, Perdoo, Tability” DeepSeek V4 Flash · comparative prompt · first choice

What the models said about Leapsome

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of three in this category shown.

“HR-suite "goals modules" (Lattice, Leapsome, ...) ... Risky if you want dedicated OKR tracking” MiniMax M2.5 · negative prompt · soft negative
“For a mid-sized B2B company, Leapsome is often the most recommended for its balance of features, ease of use, and scalability.” Mistral Small · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Primary Recommendation: Leapsome” MiniMax M2.5 · paraphrase prompt · first choice
Also compared
Tability vs LatticeTability vs MooncampTability vs OKRs ToolTability vs PerdooTability vs Profit.coTability vs 15FiveLattice vs LeapsomeMooncamp vs LeapsomeOKRs Tool vs LeapsomePerdoo vs LeapsomeProfit.co vs LeapsomeLeapsome vs 15FiveAll twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full goals and okrs standing

Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.