Employee survey software usually means an engagement suite billed per employee per month. Wavefield is the other kind: an AI agent builds your questionnaire, you field it to your own people, and results come back weighted and significance-tested, from $99 per study and $99 per repeat wave. No seats, no annual contract.
Build a survey freeThe engagement suites (Culture Amp, Lattice, Leapsome and their class) sell always-on listening: dashboards, manager nudges, HRIS integrations, benchmarks, billed per employee per month. For a large organization running continuous programs, that is honestly the right buy. The study model is different: design a real questionnaire, field it in a defined window, weight the results, decide, and pay for the measurement you took. The research case for measuring engagement at all is solid either way; Gallup's Q12 program, built on data from over three million workers, ties engagement to measurable team outcomes. The open question is never whether to ask your employees anything. It is whether you need a subscription platform or a defensible number, and a surprising share of companies paying for the first only ever use it as the second.
Employee satisfaction survey software in the study sense is what this page is selling, so weigh our bias accordingly. The honest tell in either direction is usage: if HR fields two serious surveys a year, per-study pricing wins by arithmetic; if managers genuinely act on monthly listening data, buy the suite.
A pulse program is a short instrument, 5 to 15 questions, re-fielded on a steady cadence. The methodology that makes a pulse trustworthy is boring and strict: identical questions, identical fielding window, wave after wave, because every edit you make to the instrument shows up disguised as a change in morale. Wavefield runs this as a tracker: build the employee pulse survey once, then re-field it quarterly or monthly at $99 a wave, with the questionnaire locked across waves and the trend chart carrying real response counts. Quarterly is the right default for most teams: frequent enough to catch real shifts, rare enough that answering stays a considered act instead of a reflex.
Describe what you need to learn, or upload a brief, and the agent drafts the questionnaire with response scales, skip logic, and screeners, ready for your review before anything goes out.
Send personal one-use links by email to your roster, or share an open link that attaches no identity. Your list never becomes anyone else's panel.
If departments or shifts respond unevenly, raking weights correct the skew, and crosstabs carry significance letters so a 4-point gap reads as real or noise, not vibes.
The write-in answers, where the actual information lives, get coded into auditable themes you can trace back to quotes instead of a word cloud.
Re-field the identical instrument on a schedule. Waves hold the questionnaire constant so the trend line measures your workplace, not your edits.
SPSS and CSV exports with quality flags marked, never silently dropped, so your analyst or consultant can check every number in the deck.
What to actually ask is its own craft: employee survey questions covers the item bank by lifecycle stage, and employee engagement surveys covers the engagement construct itself. Getting people to answer is survey response rates; reading the results honestly is how to analyze survey results.
Every employee feedback software page says “anonymous” somewhere, and almost none explains what that means technically, which is exactly why employees do not believe it. Here is the plain version. Anonymity is set at collection: an open shared link attaches no identity to a response, while personal invite links tie responses to the roster, which enables reminders and response tracking but means someone could look. Enterprise suites add a third layer, reporting thresholds that suppress any cut with fewer than five or so responses. We do not have that suppression layer, so we say so, and the practical rule follows: if you promise staff anonymity, collect through the open link, report only at group sizes where individuals cannot be inferred, and write both decisions in the invitation email. A staff feedback software setup employees trust produces better data than any feature can, and trust here is earned by explaining the plumbing.
The suites' most persuasive demo moment is the benchmark: your engagement score next to an industry average, instant context, instant story. The methodological fine print is that a benchmark is only as comparable as the instruments behind it. Scores move with question wording, scale length, survey timing, response rates, and who counts as your industry, so two companies can differ by ten points on identical workforces. Treat external benchmarks as decoration and your own trend line as the measurement: the comparison that actually holds constant everything except time is you against yourself, same instrument, wave after wave, which is precisely what a tracker produces. The same honesty applies to action planning features. Software can route survey results to managers; it cannot make anyone act on them. The companies where surveys change anything are the ones where leadership reports back what was heard and what will change, which costs a meeting, carries no license fee, and predicts next wave's response rate better than any feature on this page.
360 survey software runs rater matrices and per-reviewer confidentiality rules, and that is a different machine. Buy a dedicated 360 tool; do not let anyone sell you a general survey engine for it, including us.
Continuous programs with manager dashboards, HRIS sync, and lifecycle triggers are what employee engagement survey software suites are built for. If that infrastructure will genuinely be used, it is worth its seat pricing.
Works councils, regulated industries, and 10,000-person rollouts need certified suppression thresholds and audit trails we do not provide. That is suite territory, honestly priced at suite rates.
Employee survey software collects and analyzes feedback from your workforce: engagement, satisfaction, onboarding, exit, and pulse check-ins. It splits into two product kinds: always-on engagement suites priced per employee per month, and study tools that field a designed questionnaire when you need one. The right kind depends on whether you want continuous listening infrastructure or defensible measurements.
Mostly pricing model and ambition. Engagement platforms (Culture Amp, Lattice, Leapsome and that class) sell an always-on system with dashboards, manager tools, and HRIS integrations, billed per employee per month. Employee satisfaction survey software in the study sense fields a measurement: a designed questionnaire, a defined response window, weighted results. Many companies need the second and get sold the first.
Yes, as tracker waves: the same short instrument re-fielded on your schedule for $99 a wave, with the questionnaire held constant so the trend is real. What we do not do is daily always-on polling; evidence on survey fatigue is consistent enough that we would rather you ask less, better. A quarterly or monthly employee pulse survey with a stable instrument beats a daily widget everyone learns to ignore.
No. 360 survey software is its own product: rater matrices, per-reviewer anonymity rules, manager report packets. Tools built for it do it well, and bolting it onto a general survey engine does it badly, so we did not. If 360 reviews are the job, buy a dedicated 360 tool.
Ours is public: $99, $199, or $299 per project depending on study complexity, $99 for each repeat tracker wave, and nothing per employee. Suites typically run per employee per month on annual contracts, with quotes instead of price pages. Neither model is wrong; paying monthly for a survey you run twice a year is.
You choose the architecture. An open shared link attaches no identity to responses; personal one-use links tie responses to your roster for follow-up and response tracking. What we do not offer is the suppression machinery of enterprise suites, like hiding any cut under five responses, so if you promise staff anonymity, field with the open link and plan your reporting cuts so small teams cannot be singled out.
Describe the study and the AI agent builds it: questions, logic, scales. Field to your own people, and you don't pay until you field.
Start a project