PEATS has analysed 40+ vendors and 100+ tools – so you don’t have to.

Get Started Immediately

Available from early July

Ask Peaty Premium — €19 / month

The world's first AI advisor for assessment tool selection. No ChatGPT. No guessing. A RAG system — trained on 100+ tools and 15 years of expertise.

Not sure exactly which tool you need – or want to think through your case before making a decision. Peaty asks the right questions, thinks it through with you, and delivers a structured recommendation. Knowledge on demand – anytime, unlimited.

Peaty is right for you if:

• You’re still exploring your case or want to refine it
• You need quick orientation without hours of independent research
• You want to use Peaty as a thinking partner
• You want to build knowledge interactively and case-by-case

Cancel anytime.

Decide on a Specific Case

PEATS Guide — €49 one-time

You already know your case – and now need a solid, written foundation. To convince stakeholders internally, document a decision, or bring colleagues and managers on board. Buy once, use permanently.

A Guide is right for you if:

• You know your use case and want to make a concrete decision
• You need something in writing – to share, present, or hand over
• You want to back an internal decision with external, independent analysis
• You've used Peaty to sharpen your case – and now need the document to go with it
• Built on the PEATS database — 100+ tools analysed

Your Project

Individual Analysis —

get a quote

Your competency model. Your shortlist. Your context. We work through your project at subscale level, gather anonymous pricing from vendors, and deliver a clear recommendation – with full justification for internal stakeholders.

What you get:

• Weighted AI-powered coverage matrix against your competency model
• Gap analysis and combination logic per tool
• Scientific quality assessment (reliability, validity, norms)
• SWOT analysis per tool on your shortlist
• Anonymous pricing requests from relevant vendors
• Colour-coded Excel deliverable + Executive Summary (4–6 pages)

Completed in 3–10 days. Fixed price, regardless of actual effort.

Leadership Diagnostics Architecture for a Global FMCG Group

International food & agriculture conglomerate — 20,000+ employees.

The client had a complex, multi-layered leadership framework with behavioural competencies, functional skills, leadership principles, and company values – 33 criteria in total. The question: which online assessment tools actually measure what had been defined as leadership, and which are worth combining?

• 10 tools from 7 vendors evaluated at subscale level against 33 leadership competencies – all tools achieved near-complete binary coverage, yet the mapping revealed a structural problem: the same competency label was interpreted as a personality trait by one tool, a value by another, and a behaviour by a third. Everything fit a little, nothing fit precisely.
• The analysis showed: the problem was not the tools, but the competency model itself – definitions broad enough to absorb any instrument are too vague for meaningful tool selection. The coverage data became a reverse-engineering tool: the basis for sharpening each competency with behavioural anchors.
• A prioritised shortlist across five strategic options was delivered – differentiated by tool type, feedback quality, cost-per-candidate for 300 participants and configurability – with a clear decision rule: maximum control over competency weighting vs. highest scientific coverage vs. cognitive integration.

Tool Coverage Analysis for a European Entertainment Group

Events industry — assessment for the senior management pipeline

The client was reviewing their assessment setup ahead of a leadership development initiative. With 12 core competencies and tools already in use, they wanted to objectively understand: is the current tool set really the right one – or do alternatives offer better coverage?

• Ten out of eleven tools claimed full coverage of the leadership competencies – the weighted analysis returned coverage scores from 17 to 161 points, showing that “full coverage” is a meaningless claim without subscale analysis.
• The actual decision came down to four factors that coverage scores don’t capture: Who interprets the results and how consistently? Does the tool use norms or client-defined criteria? How precisely does it fit specific target roles? What is the candidate experience at scale?
• The client received a prioritised shortlist, a clear rationale for the decision, and the evidence to exit an existing vendor contract – without internal bias, without vendor pressure.