Skip to content

About Performix

Performance is a system.We make the system measurable.

Three questions, answered in order: where this is going, what runs today, and what actually makes it different. Every difference below is a stance we can show you in the product — not a claim we ask you to take on faith.

The platform

One system, three modules.

Performix has many parts — but they group into three. Each is built to work as one for Performix, and each is strong enough to stand on its own.

01The interface

Clarix

The intelligent layer leaders actually touch. It does the reading for you — sorting every finding into a personal, ranked queue, answering questions in plain language, and meeting you on mobile.

  • Per-user insight lists — the algorithm ranks what matters for you
  • Ask AI — query your performance data in plain languageIn development
  • Mobile-native delivery
02The built-in science

Performance Library

The body of measurement science baked into the platform — validated metrics, peer-reviewed research, and pre-composed analyses. It's what makes every diagnosis research-grade from day one, and a product in its own right.

  • The metrics library
  • Peer-reviewed research substrate
  • Pre-built analyses, ready to run
03The data pipeline

DevPlane

The AI-driven ETL layer that gets your data in. Agents connect your sources, map them to a common shape, and clear the integration board in days — not a months-long project.

  • AI source connectors
  • Automatic schema mapping
  • The integration board, run by agents

The result you see

Open Performix and the answer is already there — one accountable card per team.

Show how it works
Now Playing · Week 22 Settlement

Acme Engineering — Platform Group: Support is the binding constraint.

Settled from 24 items · 11 respondents · 3-day window closing 2026-05-19

Capability
Alignment
Motivation
Support
14
18
20
22
23 (sched.)
4.2
4.4
4.3
4.5
3.8
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.0
4.2
4.1
4.2
3.9
3.4
2.8
2.1
Score: 1 (starving) → 5 (healthy)

Support has been declining across three consecutive measurements, with the steepest drop on cross-functional response time. Capability and motivation are stable above 4.0; this is a system problem, not a talent problem.

Cross-functional response time · Edmondson 2018Tooling fit · Davis 1989Resource sufficiency · Hackman & Oldham 1976
Recommended Action

Convene a 45-minute working session with engineering and product to identify the top three cross-functional handoffs introducing the most delay; assign a single owner per handoff with a two-week resolution target.

Owner: Priya Mehta · Target close: 2026-06-05 · Remeasure: Week 26

Up Next · Platform Group — Longitudinal
Week 22 (queued)
Cross-team comparison: Platform vs. Infrastructure on Support subconstructs
Heatmap · 8 teams · 2 min
Week 23 (scheduled)
Remeasure Support — 12 items
Diagnostic · 11 respondents · 8 min
Week 14 (history)
Capability binding (resolved): training-budget impact
Insight · resolved

You don't build a dashboard or read a wall of metrics. Each team gets one settled card: which condition is holding performance back, the research behind it, the single recommended action, and when to remeasure. Findings play back like a queue — a now-playing surface, an up-next list, and the evidence one click underneath.

Short surveys that get sharper

The full science is thousands of questions. Nobody finishes that — so Performix asks only the few that matter for your team.

See the proof
PERFORMIX · SYSTEM OF LEARNINGCAMS — the short starting surveyWhat's the binding constraint? What's the value of moving it?PROBABILISTIC NARROWINGCapabilityAlignmentMotivationSupportCross-functionalresponse timeTooling fitResourcesufficiencyDEEPER ANALYSIS — ONLY WHEN IT'S WORTH ITQuick remedyConvene cross-functional working session;identify top 3 handoffs.HIGH VALUE · LOW COSTSelection & evaluation rubric refreshRequires confirmed job specs; pulls intojob-spec authoring.MEDIUM VALUE · MEDIUM COSTOrg-wide cross-team comparative studyPulls all teams' Support subconstructheatmaps; longitudinal.LOW VALUE NOW · HIGH COSTPerformix starts with a short set of questions and chooses each next one from what your team's answers have already revealed.It only goes deeper when the added insight is worth the extra time.

A complete diagnostic would include every validated question in the research — thousands of them, and no employee would finish it. Instead, Performix asks the smallest set that reaches your team's load-bearing issue fastest: each person answers fewer than 20 questions, in five to ten minutes. And it adapts on every submission, not just between survey versions — so the questions sharpen as it learns, instead of waiting for the next redesign.

Where the questions come from

Every question traces back to peer-reviewed research — source, finding, construct, measure.

See the proof

WHY THIS IS POSSIBLE NOW

Peer-reviewed research · booksAI EXTRACTFindingsclaims extracted from sourcesConstructswhat each finding is aboutMeasures (survey items)how each construct is observedEvidence weightshow strong the support isFEEDSCAMS diagnostic +Insight compositionPerformix

Pre-LLM, ingesting the I-O psychology literature into a structured measurement substrate was uneconomical. Now it isn't. The diagnostic substrate is the AI product; the rest is craft.

The questions aren't invented in-house. Every survey item traces through a chain — source paper, finding, construct, validated measure — back to a specific result in peer-reviewed industrial-organizational psychology and organizational behavior research. You can follow that chain yourself:

Performance Science Library

Every evidence pill in Performix traces back through this library. Source papers and books are ingested by the Research-to-Model Engine; constructs, validated measures, and survey items are derived from them and weighted by evidence strength. Browse the live library →

191 sources
655 findings
586 constructs
525 survey items
last update 2026-06-03
BOOK

Edmondson, A. C. (2018). The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Ingested 2026-03-14 · 23 findings extracted · 14 constructs derived · 41 survey items derived

Cross-functional teams require psychological safety and clear handoff norms to maintain response time as complexity grows.
pp. 87-104strong
Constructs derived (3)
Cross-functional response timeSUPPORT
Survey items (4 · in active rotation)
This team can get answers from other teams quickly when blocked.
When this team needs work from a partner team, the work usually arrives in time.
Cross-team commitments to this team are reliably met.
When a cross-team handoff is delayed, this team knows who to escalate to.

Evidence weight: 0.84 · IRT difficulty range: -1.2 to +0.6 · last calibration: 2026-05-04

Handoff clarityALIGNMENT
Cross-team psychological safetyCAPABILITY
Speaking-up behavior is suppressed when leaders interpret dissent as defection.
pp. 41-58strong
Team learning is bottlenecked by the highest-status member's tolerance for being wrong.
pp. 162-181moderate
Psychological safety and accountability are conjunctive; either alone reduces performance.
pp. 31-40strong
Hybrid-team safety degrades when synchronous-only norms persist.
pp. 218-234preliminary

Getting your data in

Most analytics projects don't fail on the analytics. They fail on setup.

See the proof
Shown: DevPlane dashboard — a sibling tool that handles the ingest layer
DevPlane
~/customer-acme/ingest/multi-source-2026-05-24
live
INGEST RUN · 4 DAYS · 3 SOURCES

Wired Acme Robotics into Performix.

Salesforce + Workday + Gong → Performix canonical schema. 11 mapping decisions, 2 human reviews, 9 auto-confirmed.

Salesforce
connected · OAuth
synced 2 min ago1,247 contacts mapped
Workday
connected · OAuth
synced 3 min ago2,103 employees mapped
Gong
connected · OAuth
synced 1 min ago8,914 calls mapped
9AUTO-CONFIRMED
2HUMAN-REVIEWED
0UNMAPPED
FIRST PERFORMIX INSIGHT (8 MIN AFTER FIRST ROWS LANDED)

Support is the binding constraint for Acme's Platform Group.

Computed from: Salesforce activity (last 90d) + Workday tenure + Gong call sentiment. Cited research: Edmondson 2018, Hackman & Oldham 1976.

View mapping decisionsReplay ingest runOpen in Performix →

Every organization stores its data differently — different systems, different shapes, the same role measured a dozen ways. That's where enterprise analytics projects stall: getting the data in becomes its own project — a board full of integration tickets, a team working them, and a standup every morning to move them across. Months before anyone sees a result.

DevPlane runs that same board with AI agents instead of people — and they just get the work done, fast. The agents connect your sources, map them to a common shape, and clear the mapping decisions themselves. When one genuinely needs a human call, DevPlane drops you a simple form to answer — no ticket queue, no standup. The setup project becomes a run that finishes in days.

What you can run

A library of ready-made analyses — each one a single decision, not a dashboard to build.

See the proof

Discover

8 Recipes

What do you want to learn?

Each Recipe is a packaged combination of inputs, analysis, and outputs your org can deploy as a single decision.

SALES

Revenue Variance Diagnostic

Why some sales teams hit and others miss — diagnoses the binding constraint across CAMS for each team.

2-3 weeksDiagnostic
SALES

Manager Support Heatmap

Cross-team comparison of manager-level Support scores across the sales org.

1 weekHeatmap
SALES

Quota-attainment Longitudinal

Track how CAMS conditions track against quota attainment over the last four quarters.

1 weekLongitudinal
AI READINESS

AI Adoption Readiness Diagnostic

Diagnoses whether the human system is ready to perform inside AI-transformed work.

2-3 weeksDiagnostic
AI READINESS

Resistance Decomposition

When teams slow on AI rollout, decompose into capability, alignment, motivation, or support root cause.

1 weekDiagnostic
POST-ACQUISITION

Integration Performance Diagnostic

Detects where execution breaks during integration — across acquired and acquiring teams.

2-3 weeksDiagnostic
POST-ACQUISITION

Talent Exit Risk Signal

Surfaces protected feedback themes correlating with departure intent during integration.

2 weeksLongitudinal
GENERAL

Binding-Constraint Pulse

The standard team-level CAMS diagnostic — pick a team, get one accountable action.

1-2 weeksDiagnostic

Beyond the standard team diagnostic, Performix ships a catalog of pre-composed analyses — each shaped for a specific question and deployable as a single decision. Filter by where it matters — sales performance, AI readiness, or post-acquisition integration.

Why it gets better

The five steps are one loop — and each turn sharpens the next.

PERFORMIX · THE LOOP THAT COMPOUNDSSharper each cyclethe system learns what moves your teamMEASURECAMS — a short surveyNAMEthe binding constraintACTone move, one ownerCHANGEthe team shiftsREMEASUREdid it move?

Measuring, naming the binding constraint, acting, and remeasuring isn't a one-time report — it's a cycle. Every turn tells the model which questions mattered for your team and which didn't, so the next diagnosis is shorter and sharper. The system is worth more the longer you run it.

See it on your own teams.

What's our vision?

Measure performance as honestly as we measure money — in every kind of work, where performance means something different each time.

Leaders run the financial side of the business on instruments and the people side on instinct and best-practice lists. We're building the measurement layer for the people side — and extending it into every context where performance means something different. Sales isn't customer service isn't engineering isn't a hospital floor. We don't think you're all the same, so we build the diagnostic out one context at a time, until it applies — remarkably — almost anywhere.

ONE DIAGNOSTIC · YOUR SITUATIONSales performance varianceAI transformation readinessPost-acquisition integrationProtected feedback + CAMS diagnostic + Insight PlayerONE DIAGNOSTIC

Whichever problem brings you in, the diagnostic underneath is the same — one product, not three tools to stitch together.

That work is already underway. Each context we research, instrument, and verify becomes a profile you can see end to end. See the use cases.

What's the solution today?

The missing layer for managing performance — measurement science for leadership decisions, and it runs today.

A short, adaptive diagnostic finds which of four conditions — Capability, Alignment, Motivation, Support — is the one holding a team back. It recommends a single accountable action, schedules a remeasurement, and plays the result back over time. The questions come from peer-reviewed research, every number carries its source and its uncertainty, and the whole thing is packaged as Recipes you run for your situation. You don't have to take that on faith — you can watch it run.

The output — one settled card per team

Acme Engineering — Platform Group·Manager: Priya Mehta·11 members·Acme Robotics

Support is the binding constraint for the Platform Group.

Capability
4.2
Alignment
3.9
Motivation
4.1
Support
2.8starving

Support is starving primarily on two subconstructs: cross-functional response time and tooling fit. The capability and motivation evidence is strong; alignment is within normal range.

Tooling fit · Davis 1989Resource sufficiency · Hackman & Oldham 1976
Recommended Action

Convene a 45-minute working session with engineering and product to identify the top three cross-functional handoffs introducing the most delay; assign a single owner per handoff with a two-week resolution target.

Remeasure Support in 4 weeks (12 items, 8 min).

The playback — insights queued like a music player

Now Playing · Week 22 Settlement

Acme Engineering — Platform Group: Support is the binding constraint.

Settled from 24 items · 11 respondents · 3-day window closing 2026-05-19

Capability
Alignment
Motivation
Support
14
18
20
22
23 (sched.)
4.2
4.4
4.3
4.5
3.8
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.0
4.2
4.1
4.2
3.9
3.4
2.8
2.1
Score: 1 (starving) → 5 (healthy)

Support has been declining across three consecutive measurements, with the steepest drop on cross-functional response time. Capability and motivation are stable above 4.0; this is a system problem, not a talent problem.

Cross-functional response time · Edmondson 2018Tooling fit · Davis 1989Resource sufficiency · Hackman & Oldham 1976
Recommended Action

Convene a 45-minute working session with engineering and product to identify the top three cross-functional handoffs introducing the most delay; assign a single owner per handoff with a two-week resolution target.

Owner: Priya Mehta · Target close: 2026-06-05 · Remeasure: Week 26

Up Next · Platform Group — Longitudinal
Week 22 (queued)
Cross-team comparison: Platform vs. Infrastructure on Support subconstructs
Heatmap · 8 teams · 2 min
Week 23 (scheduled)
Remeasure Support — 12 items
Diagnostic · 11 respondents · 8 min
Week 14 (history)
Capability binding (resolved): training-budget impact
Insight · resolved

What makes us genuinely different?

Seven things only we do — each a stance, materialized in the product.

These aren't feature bullets. Each one is a philosophical choice about how performance should be measured, made real in something you can see and run.

01

We find the one thing, not forty.

Performance is conjunctive: when any one of the four conditions is starving, performance follows — so the fix is the starving condition, and the rest is noise. Most tools hand you a dashboard and a best-practice list. We refuse the list by design and name one accountable action against the binding condition.

See the proof
PERFORMIX · WHAT'S BINDING, NOT WHAT'S WRONGWhat's wrongunclear goalslow toolingno recognitionhandoffsscope creepstale docstech debtno feedbackbad meetingssilosturnoverslow CIunclear rolesno roadmapcontext lossbottlenecksreworklate specsno metricsskill gapsdependenciesapprovalsmisalignmentprioritiesTwenty-four things. Acting on all of them is acting on none.What's bindingunclear goalslow toolingno recognitionhandoffsscope creepstale docstech debtno feedbackbad meetingssilosturnoverslow CIunclear rolesno roadmapcontext lossbottlenecksreworklate specsno metricsskill gapsdependenciesapprovalsmisalignmentprioritiesOne condition. Relieve it and the rest move.

02

The measurement is real, not generated.

The math is psychometrics — adaptive item selection, value-of-information, confidence intervals — read off the research, not produced on demand by a language model. AI did the slow work of turning the literature into runnable math; it is a consumer of that math, not its author. That boundary is the whole differentiator.

See the proof
PERFORMIX · AI IN ITS RIGHTFUL PLACEAI · substrate prepSchema mappingEvidence extractionItem-candidate generationNOT AI · the diagnostic engineIRTMaxDiff (BIBD)Monte Carlo · EVPI/EVSIWilson intervalsMeasurement, not generation.AI · downstream consumptionTyped outputsAgent pipelinesNarrative summaries

03

Every number shows its receipts.

Every survey item traces a chain — source paper, finding, construct, validated measure — and every estimate is reported with its uncertainty. A measured constraint is falsifiable; a favored narrative is not. You can follow any number back to the paper it came from.

See the proof

The research, made browseable

Performance Science Library

Every evidence pill in Performix traces back through this library. Source papers and books are ingested by the Research-to-Model Engine; constructs, validated measures, and survey items are derived from them and weighted by evidence strength. Browse the live library →

191 sources
655 findings
586 constructs
525 survey items
last update 2026-06-03
BOOK

Edmondson, A. C. (2018). The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Ingested 2026-03-14 · 23 findings extracted · 14 constructs derived · 41 survey items derived

Cross-functional teams require psychological safety and clear handoff norms to maintain response time as complexity grows.
pp. 87-104strong
Constructs derived (3)
Cross-functional response timeSUPPORT
Survey items (4 · in active rotation)
This team can get answers from other teams quickly when blocked.
When this team needs work from a partner team, the work usually arrives in time.
Cross-team commitments to this team are reliably met.
When a cross-team handoff is delayed, this team knows who to escalate to.

Evidence weight: 0.84 · IRT difficulty range: -1.2 to +0.6 · last calibration: 2026-05-04

Handoff clarityALIGNMENT
Cross-team psychological safetyCAPABILITY
Speaking-up behavior is suppressed when leaders interpret dissent as defection.
pp. 41-58strong
Team learning is bottlenecked by the highest-status member's tolerance for being wrong.
pp. 162-181moderate
Psychological safety and accountability are conjunctive; either alone reduces performance.
pp. 31-40strong
Hybrid-team safety degrades when synchronous-only norms persist.
pp. 218-234preliminary

WHY THIS IS POSSIBLE NOW

Peer-reviewed research · booksAI EXTRACTFindingsclaims extracted from sourcesConstructswhat each finding is aboutMeasures (survey items)how each construct is observedEvidence weightshow strong the support isFEEDSCAMS diagnostic +Insight compositionPerformix

Pre-LLM, ingesting the I-O psychology literature into a structured measurement substrate was uneconomical. Now it isn't. The diagnostic substrate is the AI product; the rest is craft.

04

It asks the fewest questions that work — and sharpens every time.

A complete diagnostic would include every validated question in the research — thousands of them, and nobody would finish it. Instead the diagnostic asks the smallest set that reaches your team's load-bearing issue: fewer than 20 questions per person, in five to ten minutes. And it adapts on every submission, not just between survey versions — the value of the next question decides whether it's worth asking.

See the proof
PERFORMIX · SYSTEM OF LEARNINGCAMS — the short starting surveyWhat's the binding constraint? What's the value of moving it?PROBABILISTIC NARROWINGCapabilityAlignmentMotivationSupportCross-functionalresponse timeTooling fitResourcesufficiencyDEEPER ANALYSIS — ONLY WHEN IT'S WORTH ITQuick remedyConvene cross-functional working session;identify top 3 handoffs.HIGH VALUE · LOW COSTSelection & evaluation rubric refreshRequires confirmed job specs; pulls intojob-spec authoring.MEDIUM VALUE · MEDIUM COSTOrg-wide cross-team comparative studyPulls all teams' Support subconstructheatmaps; longitudinal.LOW VALUE NOW · HIGH COSTPerformix starts with a short set of questions and chooses each next one from what your team's answers have already revealed.It only goes deeper when the added insight is worth the extra time.

05

Insights are ready before you open them.

Performix isn't a dashboard you assemble. Open it and the insights are already there — computed on a schedule, scored, and privacy-checked — so the executive view loads instantly and stays consistent for everyone looking at it. Computed once, played back to whoever needs it.

See the proof

Ready when you open it

IngestionSuppression gateSegmentationCAMS scoringInsight compositionStorage — Insights, Charts, Smart ListsPlayerREAD-ONLYLibraryREAD-ONLYNotifications + Briefing exportsREAD-ONLY

Computed and privacy-checked ahead of time — so the views you open are instant, and read-only, so everyone sees the same numbers.

06

Feedback lives in the work, and it's protected.

The same lightweight rating shows up wherever you need it — on a section of a document, on a statement about your team, on whether an intervention fits — never in a separate survey. Responses are anonymized and gated by a minimum count, so the lens can't be aimed at any individual. Feedback becomes part of the work instead of running parallel to it.

See the proof

FEEDBACK, WHEREVER YOU WORK

12345One rating widgetRate a section of a documentRate your team on a CAMS statementRate whether an intervention fits

The same rating lives wherever you work — on a document, on a CAMS statement, on whether an intervention fits. You answer in place; there's never a separate survey.

07

We don't think you're all the same.

One engine underneath — but the definition of performance differs by context, so we research and build each one out instead of shipping a generic tool and asking you to map it onto your world. This is the difference that becomes the vision: a tool that earns the right to say it understands your context, one context at a time.

See the proof

One engine — filtered to where performance breaks for you

Discover

8 Recipes

What do you want to learn?

Each Recipe is a packaged combination of inputs, analysis, and outputs your org can deploy as a single decision.

SALES

Revenue Variance Diagnostic

Why some sales teams hit and others miss — diagnoses the binding constraint across CAMS for each team.

2-3 weeksDiagnostic
SALES

Manager Support Heatmap

Cross-team comparison of manager-level Support scores across the sales org.

1 weekHeatmap
SALES

Quota-attainment Longitudinal

Track how CAMS conditions track against quota attainment over the last four quarters.

1 weekLongitudinal
AI READINESS

AI Adoption Readiness Diagnostic

Diagnoses whether the human system is ready to perform inside AI-transformed work.

2-3 weeksDiagnostic
AI READINESS

Resistance Decomposition

When teams slow on AI rollout, decompose into capability, alignment, motivation, or support root cause.

1 weekDiagnostic
POST-ACQUISITION

Integration Performance Diagnostic

Detects where execution breaks during integration — across acquired and acquiring teams.

2-3 weeksDiagnostic
POST-ACQUISITION

Talent Exit Risk Signal

Surfaces protected feedback themes correlating with departure intent during integration.

2 weeksLongitudinal
GENERAL

Binding-Constraint Pulse

The standard team-level CAMS diagnostic — pick a team, get one accountable action.

1-2 weeksDiagnostic

Each context gets researched, instrumented, and verified before it earns a profile. See the use cases

Key concepts

The handful of ideas the rest of it rests on.

CAMS — the foundational model

Capability, Alignment, Motivation, Support — the four conditions performance is built on.

The four conditions are conjunctive: when any one is starving, performance follows. The diagnostic's whole job is to find which one — for your team, right now — and point resource only there.

Show the diagram
CAMS · FOUR CONDITIONS OF TEAM PERFORMANCECAPABILITY92%ALIGNMENT88%MOTIVATION90%SUPPORT30%STARVINGPerformance is conjunctive. The binding constraint is the one starving condition — apply resource only there.

Three teams · three remedies

Same instrument, different teams, wildly different recommendations — because the binding constraint is different for each.

Show the diagram
SAME INSTRUMENT · DIFFERENT TEAMS · DIFFERENT REMEDIESCAMS · NAV — minimum load-bearing instrumentTeam ACapabilitySelection & evaluation rubric gapRefresh selection criteria;confirm job specsMED VOI · NEEDS EXEC APPROVALTeam BMotivationPerceived fairness; recognition gapManager 1:1 coaching loop +fairness pulseHIGH VOI · LOW COSTTeam CSupportCross-functional response timeCross-functional workingsession; assign ownersHIGH VOI · LOW COSTSame instrument, three teams, three different remedies. The engine routes resource to where it actually moves the needle for this team.

The roster, auto-mapped

The diagnostic is only as good as the roster behind it — so the roster is auto-mapped with per-column confidence and an override.

On first onboarding, the operator uploads a CSV from their HRIS. Performix infers the mapping to the canonical schema column-by-column, scores each inference, and opens up the reasoning — name similarity, value pattern, header position — so the operator can override before anything downstream runs. No black-box pipeline.

Show the diagram

Map columns to the canonical schema

We've inferred a mapping for each column in acme-platform-roster.csv from the column name, sampled values, and the canonical schema. Confirm or override; unmapped columns will be ignored.

8 of 8 fields mapped
Canonical fieldSource columnSample valuesConfidenceStatus
employee.id
textRequired
E10481E10482
96%
Mapped
employee.fullName
textRequired
Priya MehtaJordan Lee
94%
Mapped
manager.email
emailRequired
priya.mehta@acme.examplej.lee@acme.example
91%
Mapped
employee.jobTitle
textRequired
Senior Software EngineerEngineering Manager
89%
Mapped
employee.department
text
PlatformInfrastructure
88%
Mapped
employee.hireDate
dateRequired
2022-03-142021-08-02
93%
Mapped
employee.location
text
NYCRemote-US
72%
Mapped
employee.employmentType
text
FTFT
81%
Mapped
Why this mapping — MgrEmail → manager.email
Column-name similarity0.92
Value pattern (email regex)0.88
Header position (typical HRIS exports)0.75
Combined0.91

Where decisions get made

Built mobile-native, so the diagnostic lands where leaders actually decide — not only at a desk.

Show the diagram
PERFORMIX · DELIVERED WHERE DECISIONS GET MADEPerformixNOWSupport is thebinding constraint→ Assign to Ops LeadUp nextevidence ↓ one tapBI on a phone000Built for a desktop reader.One card, queued — vs. a dashboard that doesn't fit.

Working with us directly

Some organizations engage Performix as a tool. Others engage the practice that built it — to run the diagnostic with you, interpret the result, and design the intervention. See the consulting engagement shape →