Gloat

What it is

Gloat sells an internal talent marketplace to large enterprises: it matches employees against internal openings — full-time roles, short-term projects, gigs, mentorships — using a skills graph built from work history, system activity and self-reported interests. That product is still there and still the flagship. The platform page lists seven modules under it: Learning, Projects (work deconstruction and matching via Mosaic), Mentorships and Networking, Positions, Internal Hiring, My Team, and Skills Landscape.

What changed is the wrapper. On 31 March 2026 Gloat relaunched as an Agentic HR Platform, and the site now describes the company as “the AI-native system of action for workforce orchestration” rather than a talent-marketplace vendor. The engine underneath is Loomra, a workforce context engine built on nine years of enterprise workforce data — a knowledge graph, semantic embeddings, skills inference and clustering, career-trajectory modelling, and enterprise-scale matching. Gloat ships prebuilt agents for workforce redeployment, career development, internal talent sourcing, succession planning, workforce planning, and learning and reskilling, grouped as transactional, workflow and strategic agents.

On 27 April 2026 those agents landed inside Microsoft: the Gloat Copilot Agent and Teams app are listed in the Microsoft Agent Store and Microsoft Marketplace, so an employee asks about a redeployment or a career move from a Teams thread without opening Gloat. Loomra connects to the HR systems you already run rather than replacing them.

If you last evaluated Gloat as an internal-mobility module, that is now one use case inside a wider product. Scale on the platform page: 100+ enterprise customers, 5 million employees covered, 112 countries, with Mastercard, MetLife, Seagate, Telstra, Estée Lauder, Unilever, Schneider Electric and HSBC named publicly.

Why it shows up in Recruiting stacks

The skills graph is the asset, and it compounds. Every project assignment, role move and learning completion enriches it. Two years of usage produces matching that a fresh deployment cannot reproduce on day one — which cuts both ways, and shows up again under Watch-outs.

Redeployment is the buying trigger now, not career development. The agent list leads with workforce redeployment and succession planning. Enterprises freezing external requisitions still need roles filled, and Gloat’s argument is that the candidate is already on payroll. That is a recruiting-budget conversation, which is why this sits in a recruiting stack rather than an L&D one.

Distribution through Teams and Copilot, not through a portal. Internal marketplaces die from non-adoption. Listing the agent in the Microsoft Agent Store moves the interaction to where employees already are.

A documented API, no MCP server. developer.gloat.com publishes an API reference — Candidacy API, Company API, Authorization API, Skills Foundation, Job Architecture, Talent Marketplace — with authentication guides. There is no Gloat MCP server. Agent access today runs through Gloat’s own agents and the Copilot listing, not through a server you point Claude at. If the requirement is “our own assistant queries the skills graph,” that is a build against the REST API.

Pricing reality

Quote-only, and confirmed on 4 September 2026: gloat.com/talk-to-us/ publishes no figures, no plan names and no tiers. It is a demo form — “Fill out the form and our team will be in touch shortly.” No self-serve entry point exists at any size.

Every number below is triangulated from third-party procurement and review data. Negotiate against them; do not quote them back as list price.

• Per employee. Roughly $5-10 per employee per month, charged across total headcount rather than per active seat. That is the number that matters, because you pay for the whole population whether or not it logs in.
• What that means in contract terms. At 5,000 employees the band runs about $300,000-$600,000/year; at 20,000 employees, $1.2M-$2.4M/year. A 1,500-employee deployment lands near $90,000-$180,000/year, which is the practical floor at which Gloat engages.
• Implementation is a separate line. Enterprise rollouts run 6-12 months, and integration and training costs sit outside the licence. Budget them explicitly — they are where the business case usually slips.
• Annual enterprise contracts, custom-quoted, with volume tiers at the largest deployments.

The pricing model is the single biggest structural fact about this product: a per-employee charge on total headcount means low adoption does not reduce your bill, it only reduces your return.

Best for

A CHRO or Head of Talent at a global enterprise above roughly 10,000 employees where internal mobility is a funded programme with a named owner, and where redeployment rather than requisition volume is the pressure. The scoped case where Gloat wins outright: a multi-country workforce sitting on Workday, SuccessFactors or Oracle HCM, where leadership wants employees and managers asking career and staffing questions from inside Teams or Copilot, against one skills graph, without launching another portal.

Not for

Companies under about 5,000 employees. Per-employee pricing plus a 6-12 month rollout puts the cost per internal move at that size above what the alternatives charge, and the graph holds too few people to produce matches worth the change-management. Under 5,000, internal job posting inside the ATS you already run, plus a manager-nomination process, captures most of the mobility you would get here. It is also the wrong buy where nobody owns the programme: the economics assume employees self-report skills and managers tag projects, and an unowned marketplace bills at full headcount while it goes quiet.

Versus the alternatives

• Workday — pick it when the mandate is fewer vendors and Workday is already the HCM of record, because its own talent marketplace and agent layer arrive on a contract you already sign. Josh Bersin’s read on Gloat’s agentic launch names the structural problem: ServiceNow accounts default to ServiceNow, Workday accounts to Workday’s Sana, Oracle accounts to Oracle’s agent studio. Pick Gloat when the HCM-native marketplace has already failed an adoption test, or when the workforce spans several HCMs that need one graph across them — the case Workday’s own product cannot serve.
• Eightfold AI — pick it when the same skills graph has to serve external sourcing as hard as internal mobility. Eightfold’s graph is trained on a billion-plus public profiles, so it is the stronger external-candidate matcher; Gloat’s is trained on your own workforce, so it is the stronger internal one. If the roadmap is one talent-intelligence layer for hire and redeploy, Eightfold covers more ground. If it is moving people you already have, Gloat is more accurate where it counts.
• Beamery — the live competitive threat and the one to re-check most recently. Beamery has repositioned out of talent CRM into a Workforce Intelligence Suite with an agentic consultant, Ray, and internal mobility is now a redeployment use case inside that suite rather than a separately licensed module. That is the ground Gloat is claiming, approached from the candidate-relationship side. Pick Beamery when talent acquisition owns the budget and the CRM and career-site assets come with the deal; pick Gloat when HR owns it and internal supply is the whole problem.
• The HCM vendors’ own agent studios — Oracle Agent Studio, SAP Joule Studio, ServiceNow after the Moveworks acquisition, Microsoft Copilot Studio — are the fastest-moving entrants into this category, and they arrive bundled. None of them ships a workforce context engine trained on nine years of workforce data, which is Gloat’s actual defence; Bersin says he is “not aware that any of the other HCM vendors have built such a system.” Test that claim rather than accepting it: put the same three redeployment questions to Gloat and to your HCM vendor’s agent in the same evaluation window.

Watch-outs

• Per-employee pricing on total headcount decouples cost from adoption. A 20,000-person contract costs the same whether 2% or 40% of employees use it. Guard: write an adoption floor into the business case before signing — the monthly-active-employee number at which the contract pays back — and negotiate a mid-term rate review against it instead of accepting a flat three-year commit.
• The skills graph degrades without engagement. Match quality depends on employees self-reporting skills and managers tagging projects. Low participation produces bad matches, which reduces participation further. Guard: seed the graph from HCM job architecture and system activity before launch rather than relying on self-reporting, and instrument profile completeness as a weekly metric from week one, not at the annual review.
• A 6-12 month rollout outlasts sponsors. Change management, integration and skills-data work run across two or three planning cycles, and internal-mobility programmes lose their executive sponsor inside that window. Guard: stage the contract so the first go-live is a single business unit inside 90 days, and make enterprise-wide expansion contingent on that unit’s redeployment numbers.
• The agentic reposition is five months old; the marketplace is nine years old. Loomra launched 31 March 2026 and the Copilot listing followed in late April. The marketplace has enterprise references going back years. The agents do not. Guard: ask for a named reference customer running the agents in production — not the marketplace — and scope the trial to the specific agent you intend to buy, with the marketplace priced separately if the agent evidence is thin.
• No MCP server means agent access is Gloat’s agents on Gloat’s surfaces. If the plan is for your own assistant to reason over the skills graph, that is integration work against the REST API, not a connector you enable. Guard: confirm the Candidacy and Company API scopes cover the queries you intend before you budget the build, and get API access written into the contract — enterprise HR platforms have gated it behind a tier before.

Related: internal mobility defines the category, workforce planning covers the layer above it, and the recruiting tech stack prices the tools around it.