SumTotal vs Built for Teams

SumTotal users paint a mixed picture, praising its robust functionality and mobile accessibility while critiquing its clunky interface and steep learning curve. Many laud its comprehensive suite, encompassing everything from onboarding to performance management, finding it a one-stop shop for HR needs. One user gushes, "It's like having a whole HR department in the cloud!" However, ease of use seems to be a major sticking point. Comments like "The interface feels outdated and unintuitive" and "Learning curve is a mountain, not a hill" pop up frequently. This is often contrasted with praise for competitors like Workday, lauded for its sleek design and user-friendliness. One user sums it up: "SumTotal has the depth, Workday has the polish." Mobile accessibility shines as a bright spot, with users appreciating the ability to manage tasks on the go. This stands out compared to some competitors, making SumTotal a good fit for companies with a mobile workforce. Ultimately, SumTotal seems to be a powerful tool for organizations willing to invest the time and effort in mastering its complexities. As one user puts it, "It's not perfect, but it's incredibly versatile. If you can handle the initial climb, the view from the top is pretty good."

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.