OKR Software Comparison: What Actually Matters

The OKR software market has exploded. Lattice, 15Five, Workboard, Weekdone, Perdoo, Gtmhub, and dozens more compete for your attention.

Most comparisons focus on the wrong things.

Feature lists, pricing tiers, integration counts—these matter, but they miss the fundamental question: Does this tool actually help you achieve goals, or does it just help you document them?

This guide provides a framework for OKR software selection based on what actually matters for goal achievement.

What OKRs Actually Need

The OKR Framework Reminder

OKRs (Objectives and Key Results) are deceptively simple:

• Objectives: Qualitative descriptions of what you want to achieve
• Key Results: Quantitative measures of success

The framework works when it creates:

• Focus: Clear priorities that direct effort
• Alignment: Goals that cascade and connect
• Accountability: Ownership with visibility
• Progress tracking: Real-time understanding of achievement

Most OKR tools handle documentation. Few enable achievement.

The Achievement Gap

Research from Harvard Business Review shows 67% of well-formulated strategies fail in execution. OKRs are strategy execution tools. Most implementations join the 67%.

Why?

Tools that capture OKRs don't necessarily connect them to:

• Daily work that drives progress
• Decisions that shape direction
• Context that enables smart execution
• Learning that improves future cycles

Documentation without execution connection produces documented failure, not achieved goals.

Evaluation Framework

Category 1: Goal Structure and Hierarchy

What to evaluate:

Does it support genuine hierarchy? Company → Team → Individual OKRs should connect meaningfully, not just visually.

Can you show contribution? When an individual completes work, can you trace how it contributed to team goals and company objectives?

Is alignment visible? Can leadership see where efforts cluster and where gaps exist?

Red flags:

• Flat goal lists without genuine connection
• "Parent" goals that don't aggregate child progress meaningfully
• Hierarchy that requires manual maintenance

Category 2: Work Connection

What to evaluate:

Does work connect to goals? When tasks are completed in your work systems, do OKRs update automatically?

Is the connection bidirectional? Can you navigate from OKRs to contributing work and from work to relevant OKRs?

Does it understand project context? Or is goal tracking completely separate from project management?

Red flags:

• OKR tool exists in isolation from work tools
• Integration means data sync, not contextual understanding
• Manual progress updates required constantly

This is where most OKR tools fail. They track goals separately from task management tools, creating the same disconnection they're meant to solve.

Category 3: Context Preservation

What to evaluate:

Does it capture why, not just what? Objectives have rationale. Key Results have reasoning. Is this preserved?

Can you understand historical context? Why was this goal set? What informed the target? What decisions shaped direction?

Does it support learning? Can you review past OKR cycles with full context to improve future ones?

Red flags:

• Goals as bare text without supporting context
• No decision history or rationale capture
• Previous cycles archived but not learnable

Category 4: Progress Intelligence

What to evaluate:

How is progress measured? Manual entry? Automatic from connected systems? Calculated from contributing goals?

Does it distinguish activity from progress? Lots of check-ins doesn't mean goal achievement.

Are trends visible? Not just current status but trajectory over time?

Can it predict? Based on current trajectory, will you hit the goal?

Red flags:

• Progress requires manual status updates
• No distinction between confident progress and hopeful progress
• Snapshots without trends

Category 5: AI Capability

What to evaluate:

What does AI actually do? Generate goal suggestions? Analyze progress patterns? Identify alignment gaps?

Does AI understand your context? Or is it generic AI features on generic data?

Can AI help with achievement, not just documentation? Identifying risks, suggesting course corrections, surfacing insights?

Red flags:

• AI that suggests generic goals without organizational context
• AI limited to text generation without strategic understanding
• AI that can't access your work data to provide meaningful insights

This is the context engineering vs. prompt engineering distinction. AI on disconnected OKR data is limited AI. AI that understands organizational context can actually help.

Category 6: Team Experience

What to evaluate:

Is it where work happens? Or another system to log into for goal purposes?

Is interaction natural? Check-ins, updates, and discussions that feel integrated rather than obligatory?

Does adoption work? Can teams actually use it without constant reminders?

Red flags:

• Tool requires separate login and context switch
• Check-ins feel like compliance rather than value
• Constant training and reminders required

The Major Players

Lattice

Strengths: Performance management integration, employee engagement focus Weakness: OKRs as part of HR suite—not deeply connected to work execution Best for: Organizations prioritizing OKRs as part of performance management

15Five

Strengths: Manager-employee relationships, check-in culture Weakness: Light on strategic execution and work connection Best for: Building OKR habits and cadence

Workboard

Strengths: Enterprise focus, strategy execution emphasis Weakness: Can be complex for smaller teams Best for: Large organizations with dedicated strategy execution teams

Gtmhub (now Quantive)

Strengths: OKR methodology strength, integrations ecosystem Weakness: Separate from where work happens Best for: OKR methodology purists

Perdoo

Strengths: Clean interface, strategy visualization Weakness: Limited work tool integration Best for: Companies wanting dedicated strategy tool

The Common Pattern

All major OKR tools share a limitation: they exist separately from work execution tools.

OKRs live in the OKR tool. Tasks live in Asana/Monday/ClickUp. The connection between them is:

• Non-existent
• Manual integration
• Basic data sync without contextual understanding

This separation is why OKR implementations often fail despite good tools.

What Would Actually Work

The Integrated Vision

Instead of OKR tool + work tool + integration:

Unified platform where:

• Goals and work exist in the same system
• Progress aggregates automatically from contributing work
• Context flows from strategy to execution
• AI understands both the goals and the work

This is the difference between:

• Tool thinking: Separate tools for separate functions
• Platform thinking: Unified systems where context is preserved

The Context Engineering Approach

Context engineering asks: How do we build systems that maintain organizational context automatically?

Applied to OKRs:

• Goal context captured and preserved
• Work automatically connected to goals
• Decision history maintained with goals
• Learning accumulated across cycles
• AI that can actually understand and help

The Context Compass framework provides this architecture—organizational memory that connects strategy to execution.

Selection Decision Framework

Step 1: Define Your Actual Need

If you need:

• OKR documentation and tracking → Most tools work
• OKR connected to performance management → Lattice, 15Five
• OKR connected to strategy execution → Consider integrated platforms

If you need genuine strategic execution help, OKR-specific tools may not be the answer.

Step 2: Evaluate Work Connection

Questions to ask:

• Where does work execution happen?
• How will OKRs connect to that?
• Who maintains the connection?
• What happens when connection breaks?

If the answer to any of these is "manual effort," expect friction and eventual abandonment.

Step 3: Consider Total Architecture

OKR tool selection should consider:

• What other tools are in use?
• How fragmented is the current stack?
• Is there a consolidation opportunity?
• What's the AI strategy?

Adding another point solution to an already fragmented stack may not help. Sometimes the answer is fewer, better-integrated tools rather than another specialized system.

Step 4: Trial Reality

During trials, test:

• What happens after initial setup excitement fades?
• How much manual maintenance is required?
• Do teams actually use it during real work?
• Does it provide insights or just storage?

Tools that shine in demos sometimes struggle in reality.

Experience OKRs That Work

Want to see what goal management looks like when it's integrated with work execution? Waymaker Commander connects strategy, goals, projects, and tasks in one platform—with AI that understands the full context.

The result: OKRs that update from actual work. Context preserved from strategy to execution. AI that can identify alignment gaps and suggest course corrections.

Register for the beta and experience the difference between documenting goals and achieving them.

---

Most OKR tools excel at documentation, not achievement. Feature comparisons miss the fundamental question: does this tool connect goals to execution or just track them separately? Effective OKR implementation requires work connection, context preservation, and genuine intelligence—capabilities most dedicated OKR tools lack because they exist separately from where work happens. Learn more about our Context Compass framework and explore how context engineering enables strategic execution.

---

Stuart Leo has implemented OKRs at 100+ organizations across various tools. He's the author of Resolute and founder of Waymaker, designed for strategic execution that actually works.