CaptivateIQ, Xactly, and Performio are among the best-known names in ICM software, often found on an organization’s shortlist. They all cover the essentials of incentive compensation management while bringing their own distinct strengths. But how they handle real-world sales plans reveals key differences:
- Performio delivers consistently strong performance. It’s easy for admins to manage directly, powerful enough for complex plan designs, and backed by industry leading customer support.
- CaptivateIQ offers a modern, approachable platform with quick implementation, but it falls short in handling complexity, testing capabilities, and customer support.
- Xactly performs well in agility and testing, but it comes with a heavy technical lift, and it trails in usability and self-service capabilities.
As Performio CEO Grayson Morris explained in his letter on the future of ICM, any incentive compensation platform should at least provide four baseline capabilities:
- Organize and manage commission data
- Manage incentive plans and calculate payouts
- Provide transparency into performance and payouts
- Automate comp-related workflows
CaptivateIQ, Varicent, and Performio all check these baseline boxes. What separates them is how reliably they deliver at scale, and how well they adapt to the increasing complexity of modern sales organizations.
How we scored ICM vendors
To compare these platforms objectively, we broke the four differentiation areas into ten decision factors, each with its own scoring criteria. Vendors were rated on a 1–5 scale, then assigned a weighted final score based on findings from our 2025 Incentive Compensation Trends report evaluation criteria from the 2025 Forrester Wave report, and interviews with industry professionals.
This methodology helps to alleviate bias, grounding the results in real buyer priorities. For a detailed explanation of our scoring process, see our full ICM Buyer’s Guide.
4 key ICM software differentiation areas
To understand where these platforms truly differ, you have to look beyond the basics. In our Best ICM Software in 2026 analysis, we evaluated vendors on four critical areas: self-service, handling complexity, ease of use, and customer support. These are where the gaps between Performio, CaptivateIQ, and Xactly become apparent.
Self-service
- Performio: 4.0/5
- CaptivateIQ: 2.7/5
- Xactly: 2.3/5
Self-service shows how easily admins can manage plans without relying on coding or vendor services. Performio sets the standard for accessibility, while CaptivateIQ and Xactly both require more technical knowledge.
Handling complexity
- Performio: 4.9/5
- Xactly: 3.5/5
- CaptivateIQ: 3.0/5
Sales plans are often complex by design, and ICM software has to keep up. Performio excels at supporting complexity out of the box, while Xactly and CaptivateIQ both force users to either make compromises or do substantial extra work.
Ease of use
- Performio: 4.8/5
- CaptivateIQ: 4.0/5
- Xactly: 2.8/5
Ease of use is about the day-to-day admin experience—things like importing and transforming data, onboarding payees, and making mid-cycle changes without breaking the system. Performio leads with intuitive tools, CaptivateIQ offers a user-friendly interface, but lacks more advanced features, and Xactly struggles overall, often requiring technical expertise even for routine tasks.
Customer support
- Performio: 4.3/5
- Xactly: 3.2/5
- CaptivateIQ: 2.7/5
Customer support often determines how quickly issues get resolved. Performio consistently earns best-in-class ratings, with the 2025 Forrester Wave reporting:
“Reference customers emphasize the value of Performio’s customer success, with one stating, ‘It’s like Performio is one of our employees.'”
Xactly provides decent coverage but without guaranteed resolution times, and CaptivateIQ ranks lowest with slower responses and fewer safeguards.
CaptivateIQ vs. Xactly vs. Performio: A side-by-side comparison
Each of the ten factors corresponds to a practical question every buyer should ask when evaluating ICM platforms. ICM platforms are scored from 1 to 5 based on how well they address those questions. The chart below provides a factor-by-factor breakdown of how CaptivateIQ, Xactly, and Performio compare:
|
Differentiation area |
Factor |
Key question |
Wgt. |
CaptivateIQ |
Xactly |
Performio |
|
Self service |
Technical skill required |
How much do you need to know about spreadsheet formulas, logic rules, and/or programming languages to use the tool? |
8% |
3.0 |
1.0 |
5.0 |
|
Safe testing & experimentation |
How much freedom do you have to experiment with new plan configurations without breaking your existing setup? |
8% |
2.0 |
5.0 |
3.0 |
|
|
Custom reporting |
How easily can a user create and run custom reports? |
7% |
3.0 |
2.0 |
4.0 |
|
|
Handling complexity |
Out-of-box complexity support |
How easy is it to set and adjust plan components out of the box (with no additional coding, logic, or formulas)? |
13% |
2.0 |
4.0 |
4.8 |
|
Common-sense workflows |
How much of the work can be automated while ensuring common-sense human approval? |
13% |
3.0 |
5.0 |
5.0 |
|
|
Ease of use |
Data mgmt. & transformation |
How easy is it to add, clean, hold, access, and process data within the platform? |
14% |
4.5 |
5.0 |
5.0 |
|
Scalability |
How well does the tool accommodate rapid growth? |
12% |
4.5 |
4.5 |
4.5 |
|
|
Agility |
How well does the tool accommodate rapid plan modification? |
9% |
3.0 |
3.0 |
5.0 |
|
|
Customer support |
Onboarding momentum |
How “good to go” will you be once you finish implementation? |
6% |
3.3 |
3.2 |
3.5 |
|
Customer service quality |
How helpful can you count on an ICM vendor's support staff to be? |
10% |
2.0 |
4.3 |
5.0 |
CaptivateIQ vs. Xactly vs. Performio on technical skill required
ICM solutions should allow compensation professionals to create and manage plans without requiring programming expertise, advanced formulas, or vendor intervention. When a platform requires advanced technical skills, organizations tend to either become dependent on costly outside help or they water down their plans to fit the tool’s limitations.
Performio (5.0) stands out as the only platform in this lineup that doesn’t demand any technical expertise. Its component-based logic lets admins design and adjust complex plans without coding or using spreadsheet formulas, making the tool accessible while still supporting enterprise-grade needs.
CaptivateIQ (3.0) offers a more approachable experience than legacy systems, but it does require knowledge of SQL, data modeling, and spreadsheet formulas to get the most out of it. Non-technical users can get started, but more sophisticated adjustments often demand technical expertise or vendor support.
Xactly (1.0) is the most demanding of the three, requiring expert-level proficiency in programming languages and workflow logic, along with intermediate proficiency in formulas. This creates a steep learning curve and makes the platform heavily dependent on technical specialists.
CaptivateIQ vs. Xactly vs. Performio on safe testing & experimentation
Sales comp admins often need to test new plan configurations without disrupting existing operations. The best ICM platforms provide a dedicated sandbox for experimentation, along with version control to track and roll back changes. Without these safeguards, organizations risk broken setups, costly errors, and delayed payouts when making updates.
Xactly (4.0) offers the strongest testing capabilities in this comparison. It includes multiple testing environments, with support for version control across runtime and testing environments, allowing admins to experiment confidently.
Performio (3.0) includes multiple sandboxes and version control across both runtime and testing environments. While its sandbox environment isn’t the most extensive on the market, it gives admins the ability to model and validate changes safely without affecting day-to-day operations.
CaptivateIQ (2.0) lags behind with a testing environment that isn’t fully productized and lacks version control. This limits admins’ ability to model scenarios and makes experimentation riskier and less reliable.
CaptivateIQ vs. Xactly vs. Performio on custom reporting
Generating accurate and timely reports is essential for verifying payout accuracy, resolving disputes, and providing insights for forecasting and budgeting. When creating each new report is a heavy lift, organizations either waste time and money or lose the visibility they need. The best ICM platforms make it easy for admins to run custom reports directly in the tool.
Performio (4.0) leads the field with comprehensive in-tool support for custom report building. Reports can be created on demand without technical expertise, giving admins and leadership reliable visibility.
CaptivateIQ (3.0) offers moderate reporting capabilities. Users can build custom reports in the platform, but the process requires intermediate technical skills to unlock its full potential. This creates barriers for non-technical admins and slows down routine reporting tasks.
Xactly (2.0) ranks lowest here. While custom reporting is available in-tool, it comes with a steep learning curve, demanding expert-level technical skills.
CaptivateIQ vs. Xactly vs. Performio on out-of-box complexity support
All ICM platforms can handle basic plan components, but many fall short when it comes to supporting more complex mechanisms out of the box. Without this support, admins end up relying on coding, formulas, or vendor intervention—or worse, they simplify their plans just to fit the system.
Performio (4.8) takes the lead with broad out-of-the-box support for all major plan components, including SPIFs, custom hierarchies, crediting models, participation changes, and rate management. Most of these are easily adjustable by admins without vendor support.
Xactly (4.0) also covers the same set of complex mechanisms. However, adjustments to SPIFs, hierarchies, crediting models, participation changes, and rate management are difficult to make, limiting its usability.
CaptivateIQ (2.0) only offers out-of-the-box support for rate management, and even those adjustments are not easy to configure. Other components like SPIFs, custom hierarchies, crediting models, and participation changes aren’t supported natively, leaving admins to rely on technical workarounds or vendor services.
CaptivateIQ vs. Xactly vs. Performio on common-sense workflows
Effective workflows keep incentive compensation processes running smoothly by automating routine tasks while preserving human oversight where it matters. The best ICM platforms make it easy to configure workflows for approvals, disputes, and exceptions without requiring technical expertise.
Performio (5.0) earns a perfect score with flexible, easy-to-configure workflows. It supports multi-level approvals, single-transaction dispute resolution, and conditional workflows that adapt based on approval status, providing automation without sacrificing oversight.
CaptivateIQ (3.0) provides moderate workflow support. It doesn’t require technical expertise to configure workflows, but it only offers a single workflow for payout approvals, and it lacks support for disputes and conditional workflows.
Xactly (3.0) earns the same score as CaptivateIQ, but for different reasons. It covers multi-level approvals and conditional workflows, but it doesn’t support single-transaction dispute resolution. And while Xactly offers broader functionality than CaptivateIQ, it requires more technical expertise to configure workflows.
CaptivateIQ vs. Xactly vs. Performio on data management & transformation
Incentive compensation data comes from a wide variety of sources—including sales, finance, and HR systems—all with their own specific formats. When that data has to be manually cleaned and reformatted before importing, it adds unnecessary time, cost, and risk of errors. Ideally, ICM platforms should streamline the process with tools to import, transform, and process data directly in the system.
Performio (5.0) sets the standard with robust data management and transformation features. It offers built-in ETL capabilities, user-defined batch processing, and intuitive controls that allow admins to import, clean, and manage data without preconfiguration or technical expertise.
CaptivateIQ (4.5) is just barely behind. It includes ETL capabilities, and it doesn’t require preconfiguration before importing data. However, it lacks user-defined batch calculations, limiting flexibility for admins who need more granular control.
Xactly (2.0) falls well short. While it does support user-defined batch processing, it requires data to be preconfigured before importing, lacks built-in ETL, and depends heavily on technical expertise.
CaptivateIQ vs. Xactly vs. Performio on scalability
As organizations grow, their ICM processes need to scale with them. That means being able to onboard new payees quickly, reorganize territories, and add new data sources without disrupting operations. Platforms that lack scalability force admins into manual workarounds or paid professional services, slowing growth and adding costs.
Performio (4.5) offers a partially automated process for adding new payees, supports adding new data points, provides self-service management of the Salesforce connector, and allows territories to be reorganized in-tool.
CaptivateIQ (4.5) offers the same broad scalability features as Performio. However, some processes—like syncing plan attributes or handling more advanced Salesforce integrations—still require professional services.
Xactly (2.0) is the least scalable of the three solutions. Payees must be added manually, new data points can’t be created in-tool, and Salesforce management depends on paid professional services. Territory reorganizations are supported, but Xactly’s scalability is limited compared to both CaptivateIQ and Performio.
CaptivateIQ vs. Xactly vs. Performio on agility
Compensation plans have to keep up with changing sales strategies and market conditions. That means being able to prepare next year’s plan in advance, introduce new crediting structures or incentive mechanisms, and make mid-cycle adjustments without breaking the system. Platforms that lack agility leave organizations stuck waiting on major system changes or vendor support.
Performio (5.0) offers full in-tool support for both future-effective planning and mid-cycle adjustments. It also provides “build now, activate later” functionality, letting admins prepare changes in advance and activate them at the right time. And none of these features require major system changes.
Xactly (4.5) also performs well in agility. It supports future-effective dating and “build now, activate later” functionality for both new plans and mid-cycle adjustments. However, it lacks in-tool support for some current plan adjustments, making certain changes harder to implement.
CaptivateIQ (3.0) is a less agile ICM solution. While it technically supports both future-effective planning and “build now, activate later” functionality, many plan changes require significant modifications to the platform.
CaptivateIQ vs. Xactly vs. Performio on onboarding momentum
An ICM platform only starts delivering value once it’s live. Slow implementations, lack of training, or gaps in support can stall momentum and delay ROI. Strong onboarding requires a predictable implementation timeline, clear training and documentation, and fast time-to-value once the system is in place.
Performio (3.5) offers reliable onboarding with a fixed implementation fee, complimentary break-fix consulting, and bespoke training included by default. Average implementation takes about 4 months according to G2, with time-to-value in just 8 months.
CaptivateIQ (3.3) has a faster implementation time than Performio, averaging just 3 months. However, time-to-value stretches to around 15 months. It also lacks some enterprise-grade onboarding resources, such as break-fix consulting and default bespoke training.
Xactly (2.7) takes the longest to get started with. Implementation averages 5 months, and time-to-value lags at around 17 months. While it does offer fixed implementation fees and enterprise readiness, it lacks break-fix consulting and default bespoke training.
CaptivateIQ vs. Xactly vs. Performio on customer service quality
Even the best ICM platforms need reliable vendor support. Admins will inevitably face unexpected issues or new scenarios that can’t be solved with documentation alone. Quality customer support means clear service level agreements (SLAs), time-sensitive response standards, and resolution guarantees that ensure problems don’t linger and disrupt operations.
Performio (5.0) leads with best-in-class customer support. It defines time-sensitivity requirements, accounts for issues with nonscaling workarounds, and offers guaranteed resolution times for premium support customers. Performio also earned a halo in the 2025 Forrester Wave report for above-average customer feedback.
Xactly (3.8) provides decent coverage with fast SLA response times for the highest- and lowest-severity issues, and average response times in between. However, it doesn’t define time-sensitivity requirements or offer guaranteed resolution times.
CaptivateIQ (2.0) ranks lowest in customer service. SLA response times are slow for both critical and low-severity issues, and the platform doesn’t define time-sensitivity standards, account for nonscaling workarounds, or provide guaranteed resolution times for premium support.
The bottom line
Across the ten factors, Performio consistently balances ease of use with enterprise-grade functionality, giving admins self-service tools, support for complexity, and best-in-class customer service. CaptivateIQ is approachable and quick to implement but falls short in key areas like testing, complexity, and support. Xactly shows strengths in agility and testing but demands significant technical expertise, making it harder to manage overall.
Bottom line: Performio delivers the best mix of usability, flexibility, and support, making it the top choice for organizations that want a scalable ICM solution without compromising on functionality.
Ready to see what Performio can do for your organization? Schedule a demo today.
Read the full buyer’s guide here.
Mark Kemp is a seasoned leader with over 20 years of global experience in the Incentive Compensation Management (ICM) and Sales Performance Management (SPM) space. Now serving as Chief Customer Officer at Performio, Mark is recognized as a trusted expert in the industry. He has worked with major players around the world, bringing deep insight into customer needs, operational complexity, and the technology that powers performance. His unmatched expertise and leadership make him a key voice in shaping the future of ICM and SPM.