Workday

public human-capital-management and finance software company

Workday

Industry Employment

A public enterprise software company selling HR, payroll, workforce planning, finance, and AI-enabled skills/talent systems. Workday scores low because it centralizes workplace data and algorithmic management infrastructure for employers while workers have limited control over how the system classifies them.

Why this matters: Many people experience Workday as the interface for jobs, pay, reviews, and applications even though employers choose it.

Letter grade D Extractive High confidence (AI) Rubric gcd-rubric-v1

Final Score 6* D - Extractive
DEXTRACTIVE6 tentative score pts

* Tentative scaffolding score. Not human-checked or final.

Base Material19
Bonus+0
Cap35Ownership <= 2 and Governance <= 2
After Cap19
Penalties-13
!Not Verified
Represent this organization?

Request verification to have the evidence record checked against primary materials and organization-supplied documents. Verification does not buy a higher score; scores change only when review finds factual errors, omissions, or miscalibration.

Request verification

Evaluation Overview

D - Extractive

The score turns mainly on Scale Integrity, with the largest penalty coming from Surveillance Capture.

Strengths

  • Scale Integrity4/5
  • Extraction3/10
  • Product Integrity3/5

Penalties

  • Surveillance Capture-3
  • Policy Capture-2
  • Subscription Capture-2
  • Accountability Opacity-2

Evidence state

  • ConfidenceHigh confidence (AI)
  • ThoroughnessDeveloped (AI)
  • Linked claims15
  • Direct axis claims15
  • Coverage15/15

Scoring Axes
Axis Score Why this score
Ownership
?
Control rights: shareholder-dominated at 0, worker cooperative control at 10.
1 / 10

Workday's public record identifies its ownership form, institutional type, or public/private/nonprofit/cooperative structure in the employment category.

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions.

Linked evidence
  • Workday's public record identifies its ownership form, institutional type, or public/private/nonprofit/cooperative structure in the employment category. [1]
  • context Workday's public record indicates whether binding control sits with shareholders, executives, members, public officials, nonprofit boards, residents, patients, or customers. [2]
  • context Workday's model determines whether money flows primarily to investors and owners or back toward users, members, public value, community services, affordability, or mission delivery. [3]
  • context Workday's public materials do not show ordinary workers holding full binding democratic control over the institution. [4]
  • context Workday operates in an everyday-need category where job loss, illness, rent pressure, family-care obligations, tax compliance, utility dependence, or household instability affects bargaining power. [5]
  • context Workday's product or service can absorb real household, civic, care, housing, energy, or tax-compliance risk, but the record also shows who bears costs when the institution fails or prices rise. [6]
  • context Workday operates in a market where customers, tenants, patients, taxpayers, utility users, parents, or community members often face switching costs, asymmetric information, or limited choice. [7]
  • context Workday's core service has practical everyday utility, but its integrity depends on pricing, safety, transparency, access, quality, data handling, and accountability. [8]
  • context Workday's scale or category makes its decisions consequential for ordinary U.S. households, patients, tenants, parents, taxpayers, utility customers, or communities. [9]
Governance
?
Binding decision authority: centralized control at 0, democratic stakeholder control at 10.
1 / 10

Workday's public record indicates whether binding control sits with shareholders, executives, members, public officials, nonprofit boards, residents, patients, or customers.

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions.

Linked evidence
  • context Workday's public record identifies its ownership form, institutional type, or public/private/nonprofit/cooperative structure in the employment category. [1]
  • Workday's public record indicates whether binding control sits with shareholders, executives, members, public officials, nonprofit boards, residents, patients, or customers. [2]
  • context Workday's model determines whether money flows primarily to investors and owners or back toward users, members, public value, community services, affordability, or mission delivery. [3]
  • context Workday's public materials do not show ordinary workers holding full binding democratic control over the institution. [4]
  • context Workday operates in an everyday-need category where job loss, illness, rent pressure, family-care obligations, tax compliance, utility dependence, or household instability affects bargaining power. [5]
  • context Workday's product or service can absorb real household, civic, care, housing, energy, or tax-compliance risk, but the record also shows who bears costs when the institution fails or prices rise. [6]
  • context Workday operates in a market where customers, tenants, patients, taxpayers, utility users, parents, or community members often face switching costs, asymmetric information, or limited choice. [7]
  • context Workday's core service has practical everyday utility, but its integrity depends on pricing, safety, transparency, access, quality, data handling, and accountability. [8]
  • context Workday's scale or category makes its decisions consequential for ordinary U.S. households, patients, tenants, parents, taxpayers, utility customers, or communities. [9]
Extraction
?
Surplus allocation, wage share, CEO pay ratio, margins, and structured extraction judgment.
3 / 10

Workday's model determines whether money flows primarily to investors and owners or back toward users, members, public value, community services, affordability, or mission delivery.

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions.

Linked evidence
  • context Workday's public record identifies its ownership form, institutional type, or public/private/nonprofit/cooperative structure in the employment category. [1]
  • context Workday's public record indicates whether binding control sits with shareholders, executives, members, public officials, nonprofit boards, residents, patients, or customers. [2]
  • Workday's model determines whether money flows primarily to investors and owners or back toward users, members, public value, community services, affordability, or mission delivery. [3]
  • context Workday's public materials do not show ordinary workers holding full binding democratic control over the institution. [4]
  • context Workday operates in an everyday-need category where job loss, illness, rent pressure, family-care obligations, tax compliance, utility dependence, or household instability affects bargaining power. [5]
  • context Workday's product or service can absorb real household, civic, care, housing, energy, or tax-compliance risk, but the record also shows who bears costs when the institution fails or prices rise. [6]
  • context Workday operates in a market where customers, tenants, patients, taxpayers, utility users, parents, or community members often face switching costs, asymmetric information, or limited choice. [7]
  • context Workday's core service has practical everyday utility, but its integrity depends on pricing, safety, transparency, access, quality, data handling, and accountability. [8]
  • context Workday's scale or category makes its decisions consequential for ordinary U.S. households, patients, tenants, parents, taxpayers, utility customers, or communities. [9]
Labor Sovereignty
?
Worker power: coercive conditions at 0, co-determination or ownership at 7. Employee dissatisfaction matters only when source-backed evidence shows concrete limits on worker agency, such as coercive scheduling, retaliation, wage theft, harassment, unsafe conditions, suppression of worker voice, or extreme turnover.
1 / 7

Workday's linked public materials do not show ordinary workers holding full binding democratic control over the institution.

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions.

Linked evidence
  • context Workday's public record identifies its ownership form, institutional type, or public/private/nonprofit/cooperative structure in the employment category. [1]
  • context Workday's public record indicates whether binding control sits with shareholders, executives, members, public officials, nonprofit boards, residents, patients, or customers. [2]
  • context Workday's model determines whether money flows primarily to investors and owners or back toward users, members, public value, community services, affordability, or mission delivery. [3]
  • Workday's public materials do not show ordinary workers holding full binding democratic control over the institution. [4]
  • context Workday operates in an everyday-need category where job loss, illness, rent pressure, family-care obligations, tax compliance, utility dependence, or household instability affects bargaining power. [5]
  • context Workday's product or service can absorb real household, civic, care, housing, energy, or tax-compliance risk, but the record also shows who bears costs when the institution fails or prices rise. [6]
  • context Workday operates in a market where customers, tenants, patients, taxpayers, utility users, parents, or community members often face switching costs, asymmetric information, or limited choice. [7]
  • context Workday's core service has practical everyday utility, but its integrity depends on pricing, safety, transparency, access, quality, data handling, and accountability. [8]
  • context Workday's scale or category makes its decisions consequential for ordinary U.S. households, patients, tenants, parents, taxpayers, utility customers, or communities. [9]
Solidarity with the Unemployed
?
Treatment of exits and nonworkers, including severance, redeployment, and non-competes.
2 / 7

Workday operates in an everyday-need category where job loss, illness, rent pressure, family-care obligations, tax compliance, utility dependence, or household instability affects bargaining power.

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions.

Linked evidence
  • context Workday's public record identifies its ownership form, institutional type, or public/private/nonprofit/cooperative structure in the employment category. [1]
  • context Workday's public record indicates whether binding control sits with shareholders, executives, members, public officials, nonprofit boards, residents, patients, or customers. [2]
  • context Workday's model determines whether money flows primarily to investors and owners or back toward users, members, public value, community services, affordability, or mission delivery. [3]
  • context Workday's public materials do not show ordinary workers holding full binding democratic control over the institution. [4]
  • Workday operates in an everyday-need category where job loss, illness, rent pressure, family-care obligations, tax compliance, utility dependence, or household instability affects bargaining power. [5]
  • context Workday's product or service can absorb real household, civic, care, housing, energy, or tax-compliance risk, but the record also shows who bears costs when the institution fails or prices rise. [6]
  • context Workday operates in a market where customers, tenants, patients, taxpayers, utility users, parents, or community members often face switching costs, asymmetric information, or limited choice. [7]
  • context Workday's core service has practical everyday utility, but its integrity depends on pricing, safety, transparency, access, quality, data handling, and accountability. [8]
  • context Workday's scale or category makes its decisions consequential for ordinary U.S. households, patients, tenants, parents, taxpayers, utility customers, or communities. [9]
Loss-Bearing Fidelity
?
Willingness to absorb costs to preserve values, workers, users, and public obligations.
2 / 7

Workday's product or service can absorb real household, civic, care, housing, energy, or tax-compliance risk, but the record also shows who bears costs when the institution fails or prices rise.

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions.

Linked evidence
  • context Workday's public record identifies its ownership form, institutional type, or public/private/nonprofit/cooperative structure in the employment category. [1]
  • context Workday's public record indicates whether binding control sits with shareholders, executives, members, public officials, nonprofit boards, residents, patients, or customers. [2]
  • context Workday's model determines whether money flows primarily to investors and owners or back toward users, members, public value, community services, affordability, or mission delivery. [3]
  • context Workday's public materials do not show ordinary workers holding full binding democratic control over the institution. [4]
  • context Workday operates in an everyday-need category where job loss, illness, rent pressure, family-care obligations, tax compliance, utility dependence, or household instability affects bargaining power. [5]
  • Workday's product or service can absorb real household, civic, care, housing, energy, or tax-compliance risk, but the record also shows who bears costs when the institution fails or prices rise. [6]
  • context Workday operates in a market where customers, tenants, patients, taxpayers, utility users, parents, or community members often face switching costs, asymmetric information, or limited choice. [7]
  • context Workday's core service has practical everyday utility, but its integrity depends on pricing, safety, transparency, access, quality, data handling, and accountability. [8]
  • context Workday's scale or category makes its decisions consequential for ordinary U.S. households, patients, tenants, parents, taxpayers, utility customers, or communities. [9]
Market Conduct
?
Pricing fairness, switching costs, lock-in, and rent extraction.
2 / 5

Workday operates in a market where customers, tenants, patients, taxpayers, utility users, parents, or community members often face switching costs, asymmetric information, or limited choice.

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions.

Linked evidence
  • context Workday's public record identifies its ownership form, institutional type, or public/private/nonprofit/cooperative structure in the employment category. [1]
  • context Workday's public record indicates whether binding control sits with shareholders, executives, members, public officials, nonprofit boards, residents, patients, or customers. [2]
  • context Workday's model determines whether money flows primarily to investors and owners or back toward users, members, public value, community services, affordability, or mission delivery. [3]
  • context Workday's public materials do not show ordinary workers holding full binding democratic control over the institution. [4]
  • context Workday operates in an everyday-need category where job loss, illness, rent pressure, family-care obligations, tax compliance, utility dependence, or household instability affects bargaining power. [5]
  • context Workday's product or service can absorb real household, civic, care, housing, energy, or tax-compliance risk, but the record also shows who bears costs when the institution fails or prices rise. [6]
  • Workday operates in a market where customers, tenants, patients, taxpayers, utility users, parents, or community members often face switching costs, asymmetric information, or limited choice. [7]
  • context Workday's core service has practical everyday utility, but its integrity depends on pricing, safety, transparency, access, quality, data handling, and accountability. [8]
  • context Workday's scale or category makes its decisions consequential for ordinary U.S. households, patients, tenants, parents, taxpayers, utility customers, or communities. [9]
Product Integrity
?
Preservation of quality rather than degradation for monetization.
3 / 5

Workday's core service has practical everyday utility, but its integrity depends on pricing, safety, transparency, access, quality, data handling, and accountability.

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions.

Linked evidence
  • context Workday's public record identifies its ownership form, institutional type, or public/private/nonprofit/cooperative structure in the employment category. [1]
  • context Workday's public record indicates whether binding control sits with shareholders, executives, members, public officials, nonprofit boards, residents, patients, or customers. [2]
  • context Workday's model determines whether money flows primarily to investors and owners or back toward users, members, public value, community services, affordability, or mission delivery. [3]
  • context Workday's public materials do not show ordinary workers holding full binding democratic control over the institution. [4]
  • context Workday operates in an everyday-need category where job loss, illness, rent pressure, family-care obligations, tax compliance, utility dependence, or household instability affects bargaining power. [5]
  • context Workday's product or service can absorb real household, civic, care, housing, energy, or tax-compliance risk, but the record also shows who bears costs when the institution fails or prices rise. [6]
  • context Workday operates in a market where customers, tenants, patients, taxpayers, utility users, parents, or community members often face switching costs, asymmetric information, or limited choice. [7]
  • Workday's core service has practical everyday utility, but its integrity depends on pricing, safety, transparency, access, quality, data handling, and accountability. [8]
  • context Workday's scale or category makes its decisions consequential for ordinary U.S. households, patients, tenants, parents, taxpayers, utility customers, or communities. [9]
Scale Integrity
?
Whether growth improves or degrades fairness and accountability.
4 / 5

Workday's scale or category makes its decisions consequential for ordinary U.S. households, patients, tenants, parents, taxpayers, utility customers, or communities.

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions.

Linked evidence
  • context Workday's public record identifies its ownership form, institutional type, or public/private/nonprofit/cooperative structure in the employment category. [1]
  • context Workday's public record indicates whether binding control sits with shareholders, executives, members, public officials, nonprofit boards, residents, patients, or customers. [2]
  • context Workday's model determines whether money flows primarily to investors and owners or back toward users, members, public value, community services, affordability, or mission delivery. [3]
  • context Workday's public materials do not show ordinary workers holding full binding democratic control over the institution. [4]
  • context Workday operates in an everyday-need category where job loss, illness, rent pressure, family-care obligations, tax compliance, utility dependence, or household instability affects bargaining power. [5]
  • context Workday's product or service can absorb real household, civic, care, housing, energy, or tax-compliance risk, but the record also shows who bears costs when the institution fails or prices rise. [6]
  • context Workday operates in a market where customers, tenants, patients, taxpayers, utility users, parents, or community members often face switching costs, asymmetric information, or limited choice. [7]
  • context Workday's core service has practical everyday utility, but its integrity depends on pricing, safety, transparency, access, quality, data handling, and accountability. [8]
  • Workday's scale or category makes its decisions consequential for ordinary U.S. households, patients, tenants, parents, taxpayers, utility customers, or communities. [9]

Penalties
Penalty Applied Why this penalty
Policy Capture
?
Private-interest attempts to bend law, regulation, subsidies, taxes, enforcement, trade, labor, safety, competition, environmental, healthcare, housing, surveillance, civil-liberties, or consumer policy against workers, customers, citizens, affected communities, or ecological life. Public-interest advocacy is not penalized merely because it is lobbying. Range: -15 to 0.
-2

Workday's public record makes Policy Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability.

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions.

Linked evidence
  • Workday's public record makes Policy Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. [10]
Subscription Capture
?
Manipulative recurring-payment, automatic-renewal, cancellation-friction, bundling, trial-conversion, or refund designs that profit from inertia or confusion. Range: -5 to 0.
-2

Workday's public record makes Subscription Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability.

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions.

Linked evidence
  • Workday's public record makes Subscription Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. [11]
Accountability Opacity
?
Material opacity, reputation laundering, or hidden accountability structures that prevent public accountability. Range: -2 to 0.
-2

Workday's public record makes Accountability Opacity relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability.

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions.

Linked evidence
  • Workday's public record makes Accountability Opacity relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. [12]
Identity Capture
?
Customer pressure, employee pressure, and pervasive identity saturation. Range: -3 to 0.
-2

Workday's public record makes Identity Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability.

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions.

Linked evidence
  • Workday's public record makes Identity Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. [13]
Surveillance Capture
?
Invasive surveillance, unreasonably non-optional tracking, facial recognition, biometric identification, or AI behavior scanning of customers, workers, bystanders, or the public. Range: -5 to 0.
-3

Workday's public record makes Surveillance Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability.

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions.

Linked evidence
  • Workday's public record makes Surveillance Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. [14]
Ideological Disavowal
?
Concealed ideology presented as neutrality, expertise, professional necessity, public-service administration, market inevitability, or non-ideological common sense while exercising power. Range: -3 to 0.
-2

Workday's public record makes Ideological Disavowal relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability.

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions.

Linked evidence
  • Workday's public record makes Ideological Disavowal relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. [15]

Bonus Credits

No bonus credits applied in this version.

Confidence Basis

Confidence Basis

Confidence is computed from the evidence trail and review state, not typed into the profile by hand.

High 80/100

15 verified linked claims 15 direct axis claims 0 disputed claims 15/15 components covered

This confidence label measures the source-backed evidence trail. AI-scaffolded scores remain tentative until human review.

Claim confidence 16/20

15 verified linked claims

Source quality 12/18

Best source per verified claim, weighted by institutional reliability

Direct axis-specific claims 14/18

15 direct claims across 15 active components

Dispute load 12/12

0 disputed claims on this entity

Recency 10/10

Newest accepted timestamp: May 13, 2026

Reviewer status 7/12

Human-reviewed components score higher than AI scaffolding

Component coverage 10/10

15/15 evidence-bearing components have direct support

Evidence State

Evidence State

Profile stateAI draft / human-pending
VerificationUnverified
ConfidenceHigh confidence (AI)
ThoroughnessDeveloped (AI)
Correction routeUse “Challenge this rating” for factual errors, missing counterevidence, source problems, or calculation mistakes.
Company responseCompany representatives can submit source-backed corrections; payment never changes scores or reviewer authority.

Claims and Sources

Claims are the evidence record. Each claim needs a source link, axis category, status, confidence level, and timestamp before it can support a score.

* Tentative scaffolding score. Not human-checked or final.
1Workday's public record identifies its ownership form, institutional type, or public/private/nonprofit/cooperative structure in the employment category.

Ownership Verified High confidence Human-reviewed

2Workday's public record indicates whether binding control sits with shareholders, executives, members, public officials, nonprofit boards, residents, patients, or customers.

Governance Verified High confidence Human-reviewed

3Workday's model determines whether money flows primarily to investors and owners or back toward users, members, public value, community services, affordability, or mission delivery.

Extraction Verified High confidence Human-reviewed

4Workday's public materials do not show ordinary workers holding full binding democratic control over the institution.

Labor Sovereignty Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed

5Workday operates in an everyday-need category where job loss, illness, rent pressure, family-care obligations, tax compliance, utility dependence, or household instability affects bargaining power.

Solidarity Unemployed Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed

6Workday's product or service can absorb real household, civic, care, housing, energy, or tax-compliance risk, but the record also shows who bears costs when the institution fails or prices rise.

Loss Bearing Fidelity Verified High confidence Human-reviewed

7Workday operates in a market where customers, tenants, patients, taxpayers, utility users, parents, or community members often face switching costs, asymmetric information, or limited choice.

Market Conduct Verified High confidence Human-reviewed

8Workday's core service has practical everyday utility, but its integrity depends on pricing, safety, transparency, access, quality, data handling, and accountability.

Product Integrity Verified High confidence Human-reviewed

9Workday's scale or category makes its decisions consequential for ordinary U.S. households, patients, tenants, parents, taxpayers, utility customers, or communities.

Scale Integrity Verified High confidence Human-reviewed

10Workday's public record makes Policy Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability.

Policy Capture Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed

11Workday's public record makes Subscription Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability.

Subscription Capture Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed

12Workday's public record makes Accountability Opacity relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability.

Accountability Opacity Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed

13Workday's public record makes Identity Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability.

Identity Capture Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed

14Workday's public record makes Surveillance Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability.

Surveillance Capture Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed

15Workday's public record makes Ideological Disavowal relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability.

Ideological Disavowal Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed

Alternatives

AGOOD56 tentative score Ventures microenterprise and small-business support nonprofit · Washington, Pacific Northwest

Competitors

DEXTRACTIVE26 tentative score Gusto private payroll, benefits, and HR platform for small businesses · same market DEXTRACTIVE12 tentative score ADP public payroll, HR, tax, and workforce-services company · same market DEXTRACTIVE11 tentative score Green Corps environmental organizer training organization · same market DEXTRACTIVE7 tentative score UKG private HR, payroll, and workforce-management software company · same market DEXTRACTIVE4 tentative score Work for Progress progressive nonprofit recruiting organization · same market FMALIGNANT-2 tentative score Checkr private employment background-screening platform · same market FMALIGNANT-2 tentative score First Advantage / Sterling public employment background-screening and identity-verification company · same market FMALIGNANT-2 tentative score HireRight private-equity-owned employment background-screening company · same market

Help Improve This Profile

Submit source-backed evidence or challenge a specific claim, source, axis value, or calculation below.

How This Page Is Maintained

Evidence comes in through contributors, is checked by verifiers, and is synthesized by reviewers. Founder authority remains narrow and visible; scores recalculate when verified claims or the rubric change.

Civic Note

Incorporation, limited liability, market access, and other institutional privileges are public grants. Good Companies Directory treats those privileges as conditional on accountability to workers, users, communities, and the public.

Submit evidence for Workday Add one source-backed fact for review.

Challenge this rating Point to a specific score, claim, source, or calculation problem.

Audit Log

Recent public changes for this company or group. The full audit log is part of the Transparency record.

No company-specific audit entries have been published yet.

View Full Audit Log