Shareworks vs Built for Teams

Is Shareworks really share-worthy, or does it need a performance review? User reviews from the past year present a mixed bag when it comes to Shareworks. Some users appreciate the platform's intuitive design and robust reporting capabilities, highlighting how it simplifies complex equity plans and provides a clear audit trail. For example, one user praised the software's ability to model different forecasting scenarios, which helped them make informed decisions about their equity compensation. However, other users have voiced concerns about the platform's customer support and occasional technical glitches. One user specifically mentioned experiencing difficulties integrating Shareworks with their existing HRIS system, leading to delays and frustration. This disparity in experiences suggests that Shareworks's suitability hinges on specific needs and expectations. Shareworks seems to be a good fit for publicly traded companies or large private companies with sophisticated equity compensation plans, especially those already familiar with Morgan Stanley's suite of financial services. Its strengths lie in its comprehensive features, detailed reporting, and integration with other Morgan Stanley products. However, smaller businesses or those with simpler equity structures might find the platform's complexity and cost outweigh its benefits. Ultimately, deciding whether Shareworks truly "works" for your organization requires careful consideration of your specific requirements and a thorough assessment of its capabilities against your needs.

Is Built for Teams actually built for teams? User reviews from the last year suggest that while Built for Teams offers a solid foundation for HR processes, it may not be the most robust or feature-rich compared to competitors like BambooHR or Namely. Users appreciate the platform's intuitive design and ease of use, particularly for core HR functions like managing employee data, tracking time off, and approving requests. The shared calendar feature, allowing employees to visualize leave time, is frequently cited as a major plus. However, some users find the reporting functionality limited and crave more customization options. Others express a desire for more advanced features, such as performance management tools with in-depth feedback mechanisms or more sophisticated compensation management capabilities. Essentially, Built for Teams seems best suited for smaller organizations or those with relatively straightforward HR needs. Its strength lies in simplifying core HR tasks and centralizing employee information. However, companies with complex requirements or a desire for granular control over HR processes might find Built for Teams lacking. They may be better served exploring alternatives that offer a broader and deeper range of functionalities.