Sympa
vs
Heartpace HR

Our experience of Sympa is that building new features and making major changes on your own can be complex, sometimes leading to longer lead times and more administration than expected. The reporting part also leaves something to be desired, especially as it is not possible to include history in the same report in a smooth way. Instead, you often need to generate several reports and then spend time on manual post-processing to get a complete picture. We also see challenges linked to the way certain functions are structured: Sympa bases parts of its functionality on a specific set of basic data that is not mandatory to use. This means that, for example, the organisation chart and FTE reporting do not work as intended. For user managers, the system can be perceived as complicated to manoeuvre. The Actions function helps, but it is not always obvious what to do at different stages. For an organisation with 35+ companies in large parts of Europe, we would have liked clearer overviews and more intuitive flows.

Sometimes there have been challenges in introducing new features.

Spontant inga specifika förbättringsområden.

Would have liked integration with our payroll system and some development of the reports you can take out from pulse surveys. No system comes without challenges, but Heartpace has a clear strength in listening to its customers and has during our time as users developed continuously and continues to do so.