Retrospective Tools

Kollabe vs RetroTeam

A side-by-side look at scores, pricing, features and integrations to help you pick the right retrospective tool.

Kollabe logo

Kollabe

7.5

Agile meetings made easy — retros, standups and planning poker

Kollabe is a focused agile-meetings platform bundling sprint retrospectives, daily standups, planning poker and 600+ icebreakers in a single lightweight workspace. Anonymous voting, async contributions, AI-generated summaries and sync-back to Jira, GitHub, Linear and Azure DevOps come standard, on a flat <strong>per-space</strong> rather than per-seat price.

Full review →
RetroTeam logo

RetroTeam

6.6

AI retrospective tool for high-performing teams

RetroTeam is a focused, AI-first retrospective app that runs teams through a structured capture, group, vote, and action-items flow with Jira sync.

Full review →

Summary

Kollabe scores 7.5 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.

RetroTeam scores 6.6 overall and is best for small to mid-size agile teams who want lightweight AI-assisted retros and Jira hand-off without enterprise overhead. It offers a free tier.

Kollabe leads on ease of use, retro toolkit, fun factor, integrations and enterprise-grade. RetroTeam leads on AI & insights.

Across our seven scoring dimensions, Kollabe edges ahead with an overall score of 7.5. That said, the right pick depends on your team — see the dimension-by-dimension breakdown below.

Scores compared

Kollabe
Ease of Use 9.0
Retro Toolkit 7.5
Value 8.5
Fun Factor 8.0
AI & Insights 7.0
Integrations 6.5
Enterprise-grade 6.0
RetroTeam
Ease of Use 8.5
Retro Toolkit 6.5
Value 8.5
Fun Factor 6.5
AI & Insights 8.0
Integrations 4.0
Enterprise-grade 4.0
Detail Kollabe RetroTeam
Category Retrospectives Retrospectives
Team size Small Small
Free tier Yes Yes
Free limit 10 members per room, ~4 meetings/month, 7-day history 1 team, 10 users, 10 boards, 10 AI credits
Starting price $29/mo $10/mo
Est. 3 teams × 8 people $29/mo $10/mo
Enterprise Yes Yes
Founded 2023 2022
HQ Sydney, Australia
Features 22 16
Integrations 4 1

Feature & integration comparison

Side-by-side checklist across features, integrations and security. Hover a note for details.

Capability Kollabe RetroTeam
Features
AI Summaries
AI grouping/clustering
AI action items
Action tracking
Team Insights
Polling note
Action dashboard
Custom templates
Anonymous input
Independent voting
Async mode
Agile Estimations
Health Checks
Team Kudos
Whiteboard
Integrations
Asana
Azure DevOps
Confluence
GitHub
Jira
Linear
Microsoft Teams
Slack
Trello
Security & Privacy
SOC 2
GDPR
SSO/SAML/SCIM note
ISO 27001
On-premises
Data residency (US/EU)

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
  • + Direct sync-back to Jira, GitHub, Linear and Azure DevOps
  • + Public API and MCP server access on Premium

Kollabe — Cons

  • No Slack or Microsoft Teams integration
  • No SOC 2 / no advertised GDPR posture — weak for enterprise procurement
  • No dedicated health-check, team-radar or longitudinal pulse feature
  • Solo-founder operation; SSO/SAML and SLA gated behind Enterprise contact-sales
  • Free tier capped at ~4 meetings/month with 7-day history

RetroTeam — Pros

  • + Strong AI grouping and action-item generation
  • + Flat per-team pricing scales well for small squads
  • + Tight, opinionated retro flow (capture, group, vote, act)
  • + Direct Jira sync for action items
  • + Active product — weekly blog cadence through March 2026

RetroTeam — Cons

  • Integration set is Jira-only; Slack, Teams, GitHub, Linear, Azure DevOps not advertised
  • No health checks, kudos, or longitudinal team-pulse tracking
  • Light on enterprise controls (SSO, SCIM, SOC 2, audit logs not mentioned publicly)
  • AI is credit-gated — Premium ships 50 credits/mo, Pro 150; heavy use forces an upgrade
  • Only 4 built-in templates and no custom-template builder advertised
← All comparisons