PeopleFluent includes modules for recruiting, performance management, compensation, learning, succession, and vendor management, as well as workforce planning and diversity. These modules can be purchased separately or bundled, and integrate with other HR systems.
N/A
Submittable
Score 8.8 out of 10
N/A
Submittable offers tools to launch, measure, and grow social impact programs, locally and globally. From grants and scholarships to awards and CSR programs, Submittable partners with users to make a difference. The vendor states Submittable has supported over 95,000 social impact programs, receiving nearly 20 million applications, and that teams save an average of 12 hours per week and launch in an average of 14 days.
$10,000
per year
Pricing
PeopleFluent
Submittable
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
PeopleFluent
Submittable
Free Trial
No
No
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
Yes
Yes
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
PeopleFluent
Submittable
Features
PeopleFluent
Submittable
Onboarding
Comparison of Onboarding features of Product A and Product B
PeopleFluent
8.0
11 Ratings
10% above category average
Submittable
-
Ratings
New hire portal
7.07 Ratings
00 Ratings
Manager tracking tools
9.011 Ratings
00 Ratings
Compliance tracking and reporting
8.08 Ratings
00 Ratings
Performance and Goals
Comparison of Performance and Goals features of Product A and Product B
PeopleFluent
8.2
11 Ratings
11% above category average
Submittable
-
Ratings
Corporate goal setting
9.07 Ratings
00 Ratings
Subordinate goal setting
9.06 Ratings
00 Ratings
Individual goal setting
9.09 Ratings
00 Ratings
Line-of sight-visibility
7.09 Ratings
00 Ratings
Performance tracking
7.09 Ratings
00 Ratings
Performance Management
Comparison of Performance Management features of Product A and Product B
PeopleFluent
6.5
11 Ratings
5% below category average
Submittable
-
Ratings
Performance plans
7.07 Ratings
00 Ratings
Plan weighting
4.06 Ratings
00 Ratings
Manager note taking
7.04 Ratings
00 Ratings
Performance improvement plans
7.05 Ratings
00 Ratings
Review status tracking
7.07 Ratings
00 Ratings
Rater nomination workflow
7.05 Ratings
00 Ratings
Review reminders
7.05 Ratings
00 Ratings
Workflow restrictions
5.06 Ratings
00 Ratings
Multiple review frequency
7.07 Ratings
00 Ratings
Reporting
7.08 Ratings
00 Ratings
Succession Planning
Comparison of Succession Planning features of Product A and Product B
PeopleFluent
6.3
8 Ratings
7% below category average
Submittable
-
Ratings
Create succession plans/pools
7.05 Ratings
00 Ratings
Candidate ranking
6.05 Ratings
00 Ratings
Candidate search
6.08 Ratings
00 Ratings
Candidate development
6.06 Ratings
00 Ratings
Recruiting / ATS
Comparison of Recruiting / ATS features of Product A and Product B
PeopleFluent
9.5
8 Ratings
29% above category average
Submittable
-
Ratings
Job Requisition Management
10.06 Ratings
00 Ratings
Company Website Posting
10.06 Ratings
00 Ratings
Publish to Social Media
10.03 Ratings
00 Ratings
Job Search Site Posting
10.05 Ratings
00 Ratings
Customized Application Form
10.06 Ratings
00 Ratings
Resume Management
9.05 Ratings
00 Ratings
Duplicate Candidate Prevention
6.05 Ratings
00 Ratings
Candidate Search
9.05 Ratings
00 Ratings
Applicant Tracking
10.06 Ratings
00 Ratings
Collaboration
10.04 Ratings
00 Ratings
Task Creation and Delegation
10.03 Ratings
00 Ratings
Email Templates
10.05 Ratings
00 Ratings
User Permissions
9.06 Ratings
00 Ratings
Notifications and Alerts
9.06 Ratings
00 Ratings
Reporting
10.05 Ratings
00 Ratings
Learning Management
Comparison of Learning Management features of Product A and Product B
PeopleFluent has eliminated the use of paper reviews. It is also eliminated the use of scanning, emailing or interoffice mail. It is a great tool for communication and I highly recommend it. However, in some ways, the product can be improved. Some processes are tied to each other and could function in tandem. For example, while completing the self-review, the employee has to capture multi-raters. If self-review is submitted without listing multi-rater names then multi-rater review has to be captured separately on paper. In my opinion, these two processes can be different. Multi-raters should be added/removed/modified after submitting self-review.
Submittable is great for grant management, grantmaking, and scholarship awards. It's a very useful tool also when there are multiple reviewers and committees involved in the assessment of the application. The table feature is helpful, but to download the information in a usable report is a pain. Overall a very useful tool for funding.
It was very easy to go through resumes, choose the people you wanted to interview and set up the interviews.
It is great at keeping track of people that have come through hiring process in the past so you do not waste time on those that have already been declined or are sent in by multiple vendors.
The handling of time sheets and expense reports is very easy to manage.
Form-logic: Allows application forms to adjust based on answers to crucial questions (if-then-else) so that all applications don't have to see extended questions that may not apply to them or their situation.
Messaging Platform: This platform allows interactions with applicants or internal review teams to be associated with the specific submission, allowing for an easier, complete view of an application being considered and as an audit trail.
Good Voting/Polling Management: It makes it easier to record the latest vote/feedback from assigned team members and allows customization of the vote/feedback review as a form. It also summarizes the votes for easy review in a submissions dashboard view.
The interface is a little confusing. I'm not sure if it's something that can be fixed in implementations, or if it's inherent to PeopleFluent, but there are almost too many tabs asking for too much information. A lot of it can be repetitive as well.
Changing your password/resetting your password seems to be nightmarish. It requires an organization ID as well as security questions, and forces you to reset your password far too often. I really dislike that feature.
Honestly, PeopleFluent itself looks pretty outdated. I feel as though the entire application really needs a facelift to be more current.
We are some of the earliest users of employee volunteerism, so there have been some things to work out. However, because of that, we've gotten a lot of one-on-one support to help make minor tweaks to the system in a way that works for us.
PeopleFluent continues to develop an already high quality product and works to continually improve the user experience. The different modules integrate well, and the administrative functions are easy to understand and perform resulting in less time spent with KTLO functions. They provide world class customer service and work hard to keep you engaged as a customer.
We use this software annually to help with our grant processes. Without it, I'd be so lost! Our team relies on the data from our past years to sift applications and we try to prioritize those who have applied and been a finalist but perhaps didn't win in years prior
PeopleFluent seems to have all the functionality one would need, but it can be a bit overwhelming. Depending on the client implementation, it can be downright confusing and not intuitive. My 6 rating comes from the fact that it seems like the system can be configured to actually be confusing and not make sense. I think a VMS should be set up not to allow a customer to configure it in such a way as to not really work, or to allow users to circumvent steps. I also really don't like the "organization key" that needs to be entered every time you log in. Why is a login and password good enough for 99% of the systems out there, but PeopleFluent requires an extra field?
A submittable requires a great deal of thought to set up. It would be best if you really did an outline and flowcharting. Once you have a detailed plan and set up the system, you have to think of the process that you would manually do step-by-step to deal with the what-ifs; it’s beautiful. The ability to Clone events is invaluable. The onboarding can be complex, but the ease of use afterward is worth it.
We have thankfully never experienced an outage nor been affected by a technology issue on Submittable's side that has delayed our grant process. We have instead been able to distribute over $6M in donated dollars to AAPI small business owners because Submittable is trustworthy and available
We've had a quick and efficient submittable experience that has always been easy to use. When we need a report it downloads within seconds, even the larger reports are 30 seconds or less to download. Pages are quick to load and reports complete in a more than reasonable time frame
I would rate this ATS system a 9 as there's some room for improvement as mentioned prior. I really love the design and its functionality buttons and the way I can integrate it with other systems. I would really love to see a more detailed reporting metrics long with super candidate filters when searching profiles.
I think that they are good at answering our questions and solving our problems. We occasionally get reports from applicants about problems the Submittable team has not solved, but I do not know what the applicant has done to get the problem solved.
We have been using this for many years but my memory is that we had a human walk us through how to use basic features. We also used the resource library to learn about specific topics or issues as they came up.
10/10 because we were able to meet virtually and still get all of our questions answered! Online was effective too because we could easily record the sessions and review them later. Since we had to onboard our reviewers virtually, it was actually convenient that this was the same method we learned how to use the entire program virtually too.
I would say, provide Submittable as much detailed information on your planned use of the platform and your desires with the platform as possible, and the implementation will be tailored to accommodate your organization with minimal lag time and issues/problems.
Its great, its very versatile and stacks up very well against the competition. In terms of usability and ease of use, anyone can quickly learn how to use PeopleFluent. Again, the faults against the system would be when a client who is running the tool customizes it to their liking. Not to mention it's a very popular tool that i have had the pleasure of working in twice now with two different organizations.
Submittable isn't in the same league as these other platforms. It's trying to get there but it's been a rocky road. Neither customer support nor the account people we've dealt with at Submittable seem particularly knowledgeable about how the product actually works for foundations and can't provide detailed recommendations for how to use the product more effectively. The decision to use Submittable was made before I came on board. We are moving to another platform next year, probably SmartSimple.
I wish we could choose our own number of applications we want for the year and have the price be changed because we are in-between buyable numbers and always have to add more applications at the end of the year
We have been easily able to grow. Not only are we able to process different applications, but Submittable makes it easy to add applications onto our plan. Additionally, their eligibility form before the application does a good job of screening applicants so we do not pay for extra applications.
I do believe that goal setting and the workflow of following up, going through the process yearly is as good as you make it. If you set good goals, or help your team make good goals then the experience can go well. Otherwise it's just another thing that an employee is doing to make their manager happy.
I am not sure the cost of the product, but if it is really expensive I am not sure that we are getting fully what we should be for what the product offers. Make sure you are using what is offered.