Kollabe
5.6Agile meetings made easy — retros, standups and planning poker
Kollabe began life as a planning poker tool and has extended into retrospectives and standups — the estimation side remains the centre of gravity, with retros and standups added as adjacent rituals rather than the headline product. It bundles icebreakers, anonymous input, AI summaries and action-item sync-back to Jira, GitHub and Azure DevOps in a flat per-space workspace, and retro history exports in bulk to CSV or JSON. Recent additions include a Slack-based async standup flow, a public API and MCP server, and cross-ritual weekly reporting. Some retro mechanics the marketing asserts are not corroborated outside the vendor's own pages — verify the board before committing.
Full review →
Simyl Flow
5.4Measure what ships and sticks
Simyl Flow is an outcomes measurement platform for engineering teams in which the retrospective is one of five linked ceremonies (planning poker, standups, demo prep, retros, coaching). Retro boards are pre-populated with six sprint metrics pulled from Jira, Linear, GitHub and CI, AI generates candidate cards from the data, and unfinished action items carry forward — all feeding a six-dimension team health score tracked sprint over sprint.
Full review →Summary
Kollabe scores 5.6 overall and is best for small to mid-size agile teams that want retros, standups and planning poker in one clean tool — without per-seat pricing. It offers a free tier.
Simyl Flow scores 5.4 overall and is best for engineering orgs that already run retros and want them wired into delivery data — teams asking whether last sprint's improvement actually moved cycle time, review latency or change-failure rate, rather than teams shopping for a better sticky-note board. It offers a free tier.
Kollabe leads on ease of use, retro toolkit, fun factor and open platform. Simyl Flow leads on AI & insights, integrations and enterprise-grade.
Across our eight scoring dimensions, Kollabe edges ahead with an overall score of 5.6. That said, the right pick depends on your team — see the dimension-by-dimension breakdown below.
Scores compared
| Detail | Kollabe | Simyl Flow |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Retrospectives | All-in-One Agile |
| Team size | Small | Mid-market |
| Free tier | Yes | Yes |
| Free limit | 10 members per room, limited meetings/month, 7-day history, no data export | 1 team, 10 stakeholders, 2 retros + 2 poker sessions/month, 1 integration, 90-day retention, CSV export |
| Starting price | $29/mo | $29/team/mo |
| Est. 3 teams × 8 people | $87/mo (3 team spaces × $29 Premium; each space allows unlimited members) | $87/mo (Pro — flat $29 per team × 3 teams; $72/mo billed annually) |
| Enterprise | Yes | Yes |
| Founded | 2023 | 2024 |
| HQ | Sydney, Australia | — |
| Data residency | — | United States |
| Languages | English only | English only |
| Export formats | Confluence · CSV · JSON | CSV |
| Features | 29 | 24 |
| Integrations | 6 | 9 |
Feature & integration comparison
Side-by-side checklist across features, integrations and security. Hover a note for details.
| Capability | Kollabe | Simyl Flow |
|---|---|---|
| Features | ||
| AI Summaries | ✓ | ✓ |
| AI grouping/clustering | — | — |
| AI action items | — | — |
| Action tracking | ✓ | ✓ |
| Team Insights | ✓note | ✓note |
| Polling | ✓ | — |
| Action dashboard | — | ✓ |
| Custom templates | ✓ | ✓ |
| Anonymous input | ✓ | — |
| Independent voting | — | ✓ |
| Async mode | ✓ | ✓note |
| Agile Estimations | ✓ | ✓note |
| Health Checks | — | ✓note |
| Team Kudos | — | ✓note |
| Whiteboard | — | — |
| Integrations | ||
| Asana | — | — |
| Azure DevOps | ✓ | — |
| Basecamp | — | — |
| ClickUp | — | ✓note |
| Confluence | ✓note | — |
| GitHub | ✓ | ✓note |
| GitLab | — | ✓note |
| Jira | ✓ | ✓note |
| Linear | ✓note | ✓note |
| Microsoft Teams | — | ✓note |
| Monday.com | — | — |
| Notion | — | ✓note |
| Shortcut | — | ✓note |
| Slack | ✓note | ✓note |
| Trello | — | — |
| Security & Privacy | ||
| SOC 2 | — | ✓note |
| GDPR | — | ✓ |
| SSO / SAML | ✓note | ✓note |
| SCIM provisioning | — | — |
| ISO 27001 | — | ✓note |
| On-premises | — | ✓note |
| Public API | ✓note | — |
| Webhooks | — | — |
| MCP server | ✓note | ✓ |
Kollabe — pros
- + Flat per-space pricing — unlimited team members on Premium ($29/mo)
- + Bundles retros, standups, planning poker and icebreakers in one tool
- + No-signup join links lower friction for ad-hoc participants; ease of use rates ~5.0/5 across 31 verified third-party reviews
- + Retro action items become real Jira and GitHub tickets — confirmed in independent user reviews, not just vendor copy
- + Bulk export of retro history to CSV or JSON, plus one-click Confluence pages; public API and MCP server on Premium
Kollabe — cons
- − Slack integration is standup-only (no retro summaries or actions to a channel); no Microsoft Teams
- − Solo-founder operation with no SOC 2, ISO 27001 or published GDPR posture; SSO/SAML and SLA sit behind Enterprise contact-sales
- − No health checks, team radars or longitudinal pulse — no way to track team trends across sprints
- − Several vendor-listed retro mechanics (independent dot voting, drag-to-group, AI grouping) are absent from the changelog and could not be corroborated
- − Free tier caps meetings/month with 7-day history and no data export; carrying actions between retros is paid-only
Simyl Flow — pros
- + Retro boards arrive pre-populated with six sprint metrics (velocity, cycle time, PRs merged, commits, bug rate, unplanned work) pulled from the tools the team already uses — the discussion starts from evidence rather than recall
- + Unusually broad delivery-data integration set for a tool that runs retros: Jira, Linear, Shortcut, ClickUp, Notion, GitHub/GitLab Issues, plus GitHub, GitLab and Bitbucket repos and their CI pipelines for DORA metrics
- + Official MCP server with 17 read-only tools, generally available and not tier-gated, so Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor or Windsurf can query sprint metrics, health scores and blocker summaries directly
- + Action items carry forward across sprints with completion-rate tracking, and the six-dimension health score answers whether last sprint's change actually landed
- + Flat per-team pricing ($29–49/team/mo) rather than per-seat, so a 24-person org on three teams pays $87/mo regardless of headcount inside each team
- + Deliberate privacy architecture — scores are team-level not individual, coaching notes are visible only to the developer and their manager, source code is never stored, and AI runs on Amazon Bedrock with no data retention
Simyl Flow — cons
- − Retro toolkit is thin on facilitator staples: no documented timer or timeboxed phases, no anonymous submission, no drag-and-drop grouping, no presentation mode, no recurring or scheduled retros, and only 5 built-in templates against 50+ at retro-native tools
- − Almost no engagement layer — no icebreakers, GIFs, reactions, music or kudos wall; the product is deliberately metrics-serious, which makes it a poor fit for teams whose retro problem is participation rather than measurement
- − The health score is computed from delivery signals, not from the team — there is no survey-based health check, mood tracking, sentiment analysis or ROTI, so how the team <em>feels</em> is never captured
- − Enterprise claims are self-attested: 'SOC 2 aligned, not certified' and 'ISO 27001 aligned, not certified', inheriting AWS's certifications rather than holding its own; SSO/SAML sits behind a quote-only tier, and there is no SCIM or audit log
- − Export is CSV only, and there is no public REST API or webhooks — the MCP server is read-only, so nothing can push data back in programmatically
- − Young vendor (Simyl AI, Inc., founded 2024) that self-describes as 'a small team of engineers', with no published HQ, named founders, third-party reviews or G2/Capterra presence — a real durability question for procurement
- − Free tier is genuinely small (1 team, 10 stakeholders, 2 retros/month, 1 integration, 90-day retention), and Azure DevOps is still 'coming soon' rather than shipped
Keep comparing
Other Kollabe comparisons
Other Simyl Flow comparisons
Not sure which to pick? Read our guide on how to choose a retrospective tool.