Seven research reports built from real OKR rollouts — not consultant surveys. Free to read, free to cite, no email gate. Use the numbers in your board deck, your strategy document, or your next article.
Every finding below is sourced from one of the seven datasets in this table. The sample sizes are per-report, not cumulative. The research splits into two kinds, and we never combine them: 930+ organizations across the independent surveys (recruited outside our customer base, no customer bias), plus 876 organizations of first-party platform data (real behaviour, not self-reported). Independence and behavioural data are different strengths — mixing them would weaken both.
| Report (canonical name) | Sample (n) | Type | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strategy Execution Benchmark 2026 | 180 strategy & operations leaders | Independent survey | July 2026 |
| OKR Intelligence Report 2026 | 222 organizations | Independent survey | June 2026 |
| 2026 OKR Benchmark Report | 200+ organizations | Independent survey | 2026 |
| State of Goal Management Report | 210 full-time employees | Independent survey | 2026 |
| ROI of OKRs: 2026 Benchmark Report | 330 organizations | Independent survey | 2026 |
| OKR Platform Data (876 Companies) | 876 organizations · 7,419 objectives · 20,952 KRs | First-party platform | June 2026 |
| OKR Startup Research | Earlier startup dataset | Legacy survey | Pre-2026 |
Only 17% of strategy leaders learn about drift from a tool that surfaces it automatically. The other 83% find out by attending a review, being escalated to, or watching a metric finally move — after the drift has already happened. For 1 in 5, a priority is off track a month or more before they personally know.
Across 180 strategy leaders, the plan breaks in four measurable ways: 86% say most of their people can't name the top priorities, only 7% say most daily work ladders up to strategy, and 60% never cleanly resolve a priority that's clearly failing — it's dropped silently or limps to quarter-end.
83% of organizations are actively using AI in their OKR process today — drafting objectives, summarizing check-ins, surfacing risks. But only 13% trust the output enough to use it without substantial human refinement.
Goal-setting season produces objectives that look strong on paper. The reality, in anonymous survey responses from 210 full-time employees: most goals are written to be safely achievable, not actually ambitious.
Across 200+ organizations and tens of thousands of Key Results, the single behavior most strongly correlated with goal completion isn't how the OKRs were written. It's how often the team checks in.
When asked whether their OKRs cascade up to company priorities, 65% of teams said no. The OKRs exist. The cycles run. The check-ins happen. But the work isn't connected to anything bigger.
Across 330 organizations, the median return on OKR software investment is 1:25. Calculated from completion lift, time saved on status reporting, and the reduced cost of strategic drift.
Each report includes the headline findings, the methodology, and the underlying data. No email gate, no PDF wall.
Where strategy decays after the offsite, measured four ways: 86% say their people can't name the priorities, only 7% say most daily work ladders up, 83% get no automatic signal on drift, and 60% never cleanly resolve a failing priority. Includes the six-dimension “what best looks like” profile and a self-assessment scorecard. No OKRs Tool customers in the sample.
Read the benchmarkThe first benchmark to measure AI adoption, cascade speed, mid-cycle behavior, scoring culture, cross-functional ownership, and onboarding windows — the variables nobody else has tracked. Technology sector, 51–200 employee orgs, no OKRs Tool customers in the sample.
Read the full reportThe execution habits behind successful OKR rollouts. Check-in cadence, alignment gaps, completion rates — measured cycle-over-cycle, not point-in-time. Includes the 43% cadence lift and 65% alignment gap findings.
Read the benchmarkWhat employees actually do during goal-setting season. Anonymous survey of 210 full-time employees across industries. Goal-gaming, sandbagging, watermelon reporting, and what happens when ratings depend on OKR scores.
Read the surveyThe financial case for OKR software, built from the results of 330 organizations. Includes a calculator so you can map the numbers to your own team size and plan.
Read the ROI studyFirst-party behavioral data from real OKR cycles. 876 organizations, 7,419 objectives, and 20,952 Key Results — what teams actually did, matched against whether they hit their goals. The clearest signal: teams that kept their KRs updated hit goals at 68% vs 35%.
See the patternsAn earlier dataset focused on startup adoption patterns. ICP was narrower than our current 50–200 person focus, but findings on first-cycle adoption friction still hold up. Mostly superseded by the 2026 reports.
Read the legacy studyNot a report — a living dataset. Verified pricing for 24 OKR platforms, taken from each vendor's own pricing page and re-checked every quarter. Includes a total-cost calculator by team size and a flat-rate vs per-seat breakdown. See how our own flat pricing stacks up inside it.
Two distinct sources, never blended into a single number. No paid panels, no consulting-firm extrapolation.
All data is free to cite in articles, books, board decks, conference talks, and academic work. A backlink to the source report is the only ask.