GWork vs. WorkBoard: What’s the Difference?
WorkBoard is the biggest name in enterprise strategy execution software, especially after acquiring Quantive in May 2025. If you’re comparing it with GWork, you’re dealing with a serious strategy execution challenge and want to know which approach actually works.
What WorkBoard Does Well
WorkBoard is the most ambitious platform in the OKR and strategy execution space. The Quantive acquisition brought together the two largest enterprise OKR players, and they’ve been pushing hard into AI with “digital workers” (Chief of Staff and Leadership Coach agents) that provide real-time insights, nudges, and guidance.
Core features:
- Enterprise-scale OKR management and alignment
- AI Chief of Staff agent for real-time strategy insights
- AI Leadership Coach agent for manager guidance
- Business reviews and strategy briefings with heatmap views
- Team alignment, outcome tracking, and dependency mapping
- Broad enterprise integrations across the tech stack
Pricing: Enterprise-only, custom quotes. This is a significant investment geared at large organizations.
What users like: The platform is powerful for creating organizational rhythm around strategy execution. Boeing’s Chief of Staff for Cloud Engineering called the AI experience “magical.” A.O. Smith’s COO credited WorkBoard with ensuring continued strategic execution. The AI agents that set OKRs “twice as fast with 10x better quality” are a real differentiator. The Quantive acquisition brought deeper data capabilities.
Common complaints: The interface can be slow and difficult to use, especially for frontline employees who aren’t strategy-focused. Missing basic features like surveys and OKR activity logs. Enterprise-only pricing means it’s out of reach for mid-market organizations. The platform’s power comes with complexity that can hurt adoption. And the fundamental question remains: even with AI agents advising leaders, who’s changing what happens on the ground?
What GWork Does
GWork comes at the problem from the other direction. Instead of starting with goals and tracking whether people are aligned to them, GWork starts with daily operations and works to change what people actually do.
WorkBoard’s AI agents tell leaders where alignment is off. GWork’s technology changes the behaviors causing the misalignment in the first place.
The Core Difference
WorkBoard is the most sophisticated system of record for strategy execution on the market. It’s added AI on top to make that record smarter, faster, and more actionable for leaders. But the underlying model is still: track goals, surface insights, let humans figure out the implementation.
GWork is a system of action. It doesn’t wait for leaders to interpret insights and cascade actions. It drives behavior change directly in the daily workflow.
| WorkBoard | GWork | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Enterprise OKRs + AI strategy execution | Strategic implementation |
| Approach | Top-down: goals, alignment, AI-powered insights | Bottom-up: daily behavior reinforcement |
| AI model | Digital workers that advise leaders | Behavior reinforcement in employee workflows |
| Cadence | Business reviews, real-time leadership dashboards | Daily, inside existing tools employees already use |
| Measures | OKR alignment, outcome tracking, heatmaps | Whether daily behavior actually changed |
| Investment | Enterprise platform (significant budget required) | 90-day pilot to prove value before scaling |
| Best for | Large enterprises wanting full strategy visibility + AI | Orgs where visibility exists but behavior doesn’t change |
A Concrete Example
Say your organization needs to shift from product-led selling to solution-led selling across a 2,000-person sales org.
With WorkBoard: The strategy team defines OKRs for the shift. The AI Chief of Staff identifies which business units are lagging. Heatmaps show alignment across regions. Leaders get briefings on where to focus. But the AI is talking to leaders, not to the 2,000 sales reps who need to change how they sell every day.
With GWork: You define the 6 specific selling behaviors that distinguish solution-led from product-led (like leading discovery calls with business outcomes instead of feature lists). GWork reinforces those behaviors daily inside the tools reps already use. Within 30 days, you see which regions have shifted and which are still selling the old way.
WorkBoard tells leadership where the problem is. GWork solves the problem where it lives: in the daily work.
When to Choose WorkBoard
- You’re a large enterprise (5,000+ employees) needing a full-scale OKR and strategy platform
- Leadership wants AI-powered strategy insights and automated business reviews
- Your primary challenge is strategic clarity and cross-organizational alignment
- You have the budget for a major platform investment and the team to implement it
- You need dependency mapping and heatmaps across a complex org structure
When to Choose GWork
- Alignment shows up in dashboards but isn’t showing up in daily operations
- You’ve invested in strategy tools and still can’t close the execution gap
- AI insights are useful, but nobody’s acting on them at the frontline
- You want to prove behavior change with one priority before committing to a full platform
- Your execution breakdown happens between leadership knowing what to do and frontline doing it
Can You Use Both?
Yes. WorkBoard handles strategy definition, alignment, and AI-powered insights for leadership. GWork handles the last mile: turning those insights into changed behavior at the operational level.
WorkBoard’s AI Chief of Staff tells you what needs to change. GWork makes the change happen where it matters: in how 2,000 people work tomorrow.
Try GWork
90-day pilot. One strategic priority. One team. Measurable behavior change within 30 days.
About the Author
Oran Cohen is the founder of GWork, where he’s building strategic implementation technology for enterprises. He’s spent 8 years studying why organizational strategy fails to translate into daily operations, working with organizations including WHO, UNICEF, Sappi, and Nestle.
Ready to close the strategy-execution gap?