Top 25 Team Assessment Options for Team Coaching
In this article
Decide what your team assessment needs to measure. Team-conditions diagnostics evaluate how shared work is structured. Collective-behavior tools examine how members interact. Stakeholder 360s gather feedback from those who experience the team’s work. Individual profiles describe team members, even when compiled into a single report. Mixing up these categories can lead to flawed conclusions.
Our list includes team diagnostics from 6 Team Conditions, Team Coaching International, The Table Group, Wiley, Leadership Circle, Strengthscope and Teamalytics; stakeholder-focused tools from AoEC and TeamHive; individual profiles compiled for teams from Hogan, Gallup, Belbin, Lumina Learning, Insights, PI, Emergenetics, Thomas, MBTI, Team Management Systems, Facet5, Saville and SHL; and process tools from Teamgage and Atlassian. Torch focuses on coaching rather than creating assessment instruments.
Key takeaways
- Torch is a leadership coaching and alignment platform that offers Dynamic Team Coaching and client-capacity 360s. These services complement rather than replace a validated team instrument.
- 6 Team Conditions, Team Coaching International, The Table Group and Wiley evaluate the collective team. AoEC and TeamHive incorporate stakeholder viewpoints.
- Hogan, Gallup, Belbin, Insights, MBTI, Facet5, Saville and SHL compile individual profiles. These can support interpersonal discussions but don’t measure team design.
- Teamgage conducts configurable surveys, while Atlassian’s Health Monitor facilitates self-assessment. Review the exact questions and evidence before treating either output as a validated diagnostic.
- Current-versus-desired gaps and averaged individual scores don’t constitute measured improvement. Reports still require follow-up intervention.
Match the instrument to the unit of work
- Specify the team. Pinpoint the team’s shared outcome, interdependent work and membership. A group that doesn’t produce a collective deliverable may not be the right unit of analysis.
- Specify the question. Different tools address design, resources, operating behavior, external impact and interpersonal friction. Identify which aspect you need to examine.
- Plan the response. Plan for debriefing, practical action and what sponsors will see. If every score leads to the same workshop regardless of results, the diagnostic provides limited value.
- Request technical documentation. Review the technical documentation for evidence about validity, norms, practitioner qualifications, and small-group safeguards that the publisher must provide.
For coaching engagements, see team coaching options for intact teams. For individual assessments, check out 360 feedback options for leadership coaching, and explore the wider market in the comparison hub.
1. Torch
Dynamic Team Coaching works with both the manager and each team member, combining individual sessions with whole-team meetings focused on shared goals, all facilitated by a single coach. Torch’s role in this comparison is delivering coaching with individual leadership feedback. The relevant diagnostics listed below can provide team-level data to support this work.
Assessment followed by coached development.
- A 360 assessment can be conducted at both the beginning and end of the program to compare reported individual development.
- ICF-credentialed coaches with at least five years of experience facilitate debriefs, with reporting terms agreed upon with sponsors before data collection begins.
- Sponsors receive the aggregate program measures and reporting agreed for the engagement.
Company-defined capacities and continuity.
- The 360 can use the client’s agreed leadership capacities, maintaining the organization’s development terminology.
- Organizational Insights and Coaching Themes summarize challenges reported through 360 feedback and the areas participants work on with coaches, respectively, without exposing private dialogue. Custom dashboards display the agreed-upon metrics.
- A single coach supports individual and whole-team sessions. Participants can choose which assessment insights to bring into shared experiments; private session content does not automatically pass into team discussions.
Torch’s 360 evaluates individual leadership rather than team conditions. The team-health component in Ignite is still a proposed customizable design, with the specific instrument, dimensions, and debrief format yet to be determined. When a validated collective assessment is required, combine an appropriate tool with coaching. Define the population, frequency, and reporting approach within the engagement.
Assessment and coached development are also combined by providers such as AoEC and Team Coaching International. Torch’s specific fit is continuity between individual work and whole-team sessions with one shared coach. When the buying task is a collective diagnostic, begin with the instrument’s unit of measurement and technical evidence, then decide who should coach the team.
2. 6 Team Conditions
6 Team Conditions’ diagnostics, including the Team Diagnostic Survey, examine design and enabling conditions rather than individual member traits. They can help teams facing problems beyond their authority or support. Separate actions the team can take from issues requiring sponsor decisions, so each finding goes to the right owner.
3. Team Coaching International
Team Coaching International’s Team Diagnostic approaches the team as a complete system, evaluating both productivity and positivity dimensions. It’s well-suited for addressing questions about collective team functioning. Examine how the reports show differences across functions or locations without identifying respondents. Let team members’ interpretations guide the agenda alongside the instrument’s categories.
4. The Table Group
The Table Group’s Five Dysfunctions of a Team assessment establishes a shared vocabulary for discussing trust, conflict, commitment, accountability and results. It’s important to ground discussions in specific events rather than abstract labels. While valuable for team dynamics, the framework doesn’t provide a comprehensive diagnosis of strategic direction, resource allocation or decision-making processes.
5. Hogan Assessments
Hogan’s Team Report merges personality assessments to analyze team strengths, potential tensions and shared values. This approach offers an individual-profile perspective on interpersonal patterns rather than measuring team design or resource allocation. Be sure to verify practitioner qualifications and understand how personal data will be handled before proceeding with the assessment.
6. Leadership Circle
Leadership Circle’s Collective Leadership Assessment contrasts current leadership experiences with an ideal future state. This comparison can help a group identify shared development priorities. The gap analysis represents perceptions captured at a single point in time rather than tracking change over time. Make sure to align respondents with the appropriate organizational unit—whether that’s a specific team, department or the entire organization.
7. Gallup
CliftonStrengths evaluates individual talents and can facilitate discussions about team contributions. However, it doesn’t assess team goals, available resources or decision-making processes. It’s essential to establish the assessment’s purpose before data collection and to avoid treating talent labels as permanent assignments for team members.
8. Belbin
Belbin provides individual team-role reports and collective compilations for discussing contributions and work distribution. While a role map can be helpful, it doesn’t measure trust or team performance. Be clear about how self-perceptions and observer feedback will be interpreted, and ensure that role descriptions don’t unnecessarily limit career development opportunities for team members.
9. Academy of Executive Coaching
The Academy of Executive Coaching’s Team Connect 360 gathers feedback from both team members and external stakeholders to inform coaching efforts. It’s particularly suited for cohesive groups whose collective decisions might seem unclear to other parts of the organization. When implementing, carefully select stakeholders who can observe the team’s collaborative work, and verify the facilitator’s qualifications for handling potentially conflicting internal and external perspectives.
10. TeamHive
TeamHive 360 collects feedback from team members and relevant stakeholders. Before implementation, clearly define the team, as a temporary project group and a permanent executive committee have different observers. Review the questions, sample reports and technical evidence supporting the dimensions. This guide does not establish that evidence.
11. Lumina Learning
Lumina Team combines Lumina Spark individual personality profiles to explore team interactions. This approach works well for teams with a clear mandate but experiencing interpersonal friction. Remember that combined personality profiles don’t determine whether team goals, structure or incentives are appropriate—these require separate evaluation.
12. Insights
Insights Discovery uses color-energy language to explore individual differences. It doesn’t measure collective effectiveness. Use the discussion to establish working agreements, but watch for labels becoming excuses for decisions or withholding information.
13. The Predictive Index
PI Design combines behavioral data to create a Team Type. For existing PI users, this helps explore how similar preferences might limit challenge or how differing preferences could complicate processes. Keep this developmental lens rather than using an archetype for hiring or restructuring decisions.
14. Emergenetics
The Emergenetics Profile describes individual thinking and behavioral preferences. Teams can use it to discuss shared work, such as redesigning planning meetings. Ask how the practitioner distinguishes preferences from capability and motivation.
15. Thomas
Thomas explains how its assessments can be used for team dynamics development. It’s particularly relevant where Thomas data already exists. Identify the exact instrument and report being proposed; the brand doesn’t represent one universal team measure.
16. Teamgage
Teamgage offers customizable employee surveys with team-organized results. It captures current perceptions rather than personality. Align reporting groups with the coached team, protect small populations, and scope coaching separately from administration.
17. Teamalytics
Teamalytics combines behavioral assessment with advisory work for intact senior teams. It serves private-equity firms and portfolio companies, as well as private and public companies navigating growth or transition. Its investor work links management-team assessment to a value-creation plan. Before participation, specify whether results inform development, role decisions or both, and who receives the findings.
18. The Myers-Briggs Company
The MBTI Team Report explores individual type preferences and their interaction. It can help teams design decision processes with space for exploration and closure, but it’s not a performance score. Confirm qualifications and exclude job-fit judgments from its use.
19. Wiley
Wiley’s Five Behaviors combines assessment of trust, conflict, commitment, accountability and results with facilitated development. Its conceptual lineage is shared with The Table Group, so compare actual products and facilitation rather than counting them as independent evidence. Inspect how member differences appear beyond averages.
20. Atlassian
Atlassian’s Team Health Monitor is a facilitated self-assessment and improvement exercise for coaches or internal facilitators. Participation and the safety of disagreement affect the findings. Use it to identify an actionable issue, recognizing that it is not psychometric.
21. Team Management Systems
The Team Management Profile describes individual work preferences. It can reveal required activities members tend to neglect, but doesn’t establish resources, authority or competence. Confirm available reports and practitioner requirements.
22. Strengthscope
StrengthscopeTeam combines collective strengths with team behavior in a single report. It helps connect what energizes team members with actual working practices. Be sure to distinguish between individual inputs and direct team measurements, while also being mindful of skill gaps that a strengths-focused approach might overlook.
23. Facet5
Facet5 TeamScape layers personal profiles to analyze group dynamics. It’s particularly suited for existing Facet5 users who work with a qualified practitioner. Be sure to establish clear guidelines about the visibility of personal information, as the report doesn’t evaluate strategy, resources, or stakeholder outcomes.
24. Saville Assessment
Saville Assessment’s Work Roles leverages Wave data to describe how team members prefer to contribute. Remember that having a balanced-looking chart isn’t an outcome by itself. Make sure to connect any proposed changes to work that’s currently being neglected, and verify the report’s terms, qualification requirements, and licensing conditions.
25. SHL
SHL’s OPQ Team Impact report provides an individual development report focused on team contributions. Treat it as personal input rather than a collective measurement tool. Be sure to confirm which OPQ version is being used, the appropriate comparison group, and that you have proper consent for sharing information during team sessions.
Compare the 25 options
| Provider | Offer | Designed for | Delivery | Worth checking |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Torch | Dynamic Team Coaching; individual 360 where agreed | Intact teams and their managers | One coach, individual plus whole-team sessions | Individual 360 is not a collective team diagnostic |
| 6 Team Conditions | Team Diagnostic Survey and diagnostics | Teams whose design or conditions are in doubt | Survey with facilitated debrief | Findings that need sponsor decisions |
| Team Coaching International | Team Diagnostic | Teams examined as one system | Collective survey, productivity and positivity | How averages hide splits |
| The Table Group | Five Dysfunctions of a Team assessment | Teams wanting a shared behavioral language | Framework-based assessment and discussion | Cohesion is not performance |
| Hogan Assessments | Team Report | Teams exploring personality-driven patterns | Individual assessments compiled | Practitioner qualification and visibility |
| Leadership Circle | Collective Leadership Assessment | Leadership groups defining a desired state | Current-versus-desired survey | Gap is not measured change |
| Gallup | CliftonStrengths | Discussion of individual contributions | Individual talent assessment | Not a team measure |
| Belbin | Team-role reports and team compilations | Questions about who contributes what | Self and observer reports | Role language versus performance |
| Academy of Executive Coaching | Team Connect 360 | Teams needing outside perspectives | Member and stakeholder feedback | Stakeholder selection and facilitation |
| TeamHive | TeamHive 360 | Member and stakeholder diagnosis | Survey across team and stakeholders | Technical basis and team unit |
| Lumina Learning | Lumina Team | Teams clear on mandate, strained on interaction | Personality profiles compiled | Inference from personal data |
| Insights | Insights Discovery | Shared interpersonal language | Individual color-energy profile | Labels and collective-score claims |
| The Predictive Index | PI Design Team Type | Existing PI users | Behavioral data compiled | Developmental use only |
| Emergenetics | Emergenetics Profile | Discussion of thinking preferences | Individual profile | Preference is not capability |
| Thomas | Assessment-informed team development | Existing Thomas data holders | Named instrument plus guidance | Which instrument and report |
| Teamgage | Team-organized employee surveys | Current team perceptions | Configurable survey | Group definition and small-group protection |
| Teamalytics | Management-team assessment and advisory | Senior teams, including investor-backed companies | Assessment with scoped advisory work | Development versus role decisions |
| The Myers-Briggs Company | MBTI Team Report | Decision-process discussion | Type preferences compiled | Practitioner qualification, no job-fit use |
| Wiley | Five Behaviors | Intact teams working on cohesion | Assessment plus facilitated sessions | Lineage shared with The Table Group |
| Atlassian | Team Health Monitor | Teams with an internal facilitator | Facilitated self-assessment | Not psychometric |
| Team Management Systems | Team Management Profile | Mapping preferences to required work | Individual work-preference profile | Availability and practitioner terms |
| Strengthscope | StrengthscopeTeam | Strengths-based team coaching | Collective strengths and team behaviors | Individual versus team inputs |
| Facet5 | TeamScape | Existing Facet5 users | Individual profiles overlaid | Visibility of personal data |
| Saville Assessment | Work Roles | Existing Wave data holders | Preferred contribution profiles | Balance is not a target |
| SHL | OPQ Team Impact report | Individual input to team coaching | Individual development report | Version, norms, consent |
Turn a report into one experiment
- Choose a recurring delay. Create a hypothesis based on the assessment, then test it against a recent decision—whether that’s related to unclear authority, missing information, reluctance to disagree, or another issue.
- Agree one practical change. Clearly define who makes recommendations, who has decision-making authority, and how objections should be raised. Then review the next few decisions for greater clarity.
- Set visibility beforehand. Establish upfront what personal data will be visible to the team, what information will be reported to sponsors, and how to handle groups that are too small to maintain anonymity.
- Price the full cycle. Calculate the total cost including licenses, interpretation, participant time, facilitation, coaching, and follow-up. One thoroughly utilized instrument might prove more valuable than several overlapping reports.
- Keep observing the work. Use scores to inform your review without letting them replace actual evidence from team activities.
What the research says
A cluster-randomized rehabilitation-team study found small improvements in staff ratings of team organization, responsibility and knowledge integration following a tailored team-coaching intervention, but no improvement in the surveyed dimensions of patient-centeredness. The clinical setting and mixed results limit how broadly these findings can be applied. This study does not validate any of the instruments listed here.
Frequently asked questions
What is Torch?
Torch is a leadership coaching and alignment platform. Dynamic Team Coaching gives the manager and every team member one shared coach. Where scoped, its individual 360 can use client leadership capacities and be repeated to compare reported behavior. The cited Torch 360 assesses individuals, not collective team conditions; the diagnostics in this guide may complement the coaching.
Is a team report the same as a team-health assessment?
No, team reports and team-health assessments serve different purposes. Team reports typically combine individual personality or strengths profiles to analyze how team members interact. In contrast, team-health and team-conditions instruments evaluate the collective unit itself, examining factors like purpose, structure, behaviors, or stakeholder impact. Before interpreting any scores, make sure you understand which aspect of the team is being measured.
Can an assessment prove a team is effective?
No, assessments cannot prove a team's effectiveness. These tools capture preferences or perceptions at a specific moment in time. True effectiveness emerges through a team's decisions, delivery of results, and relationships. Instead of seeking proof, use assessment findings to select a focus area, test interpretations against recent work, and evaluate what changes the team makes afterward.
Should we assess the team before coaching?
Consider assessing your team first when the results would influence the coaching agenda—especially if team members disagree about the core problem or if the sponsor needs a shared understanding. If your team has already agreed on the issue, you might begin coaching immediately and conduct an assessment later. If every possible assessment outcome would lead to the same workshop, you might choose to skip the diagnostic step entirely.
How should the team use its results?
Work with a qualified facilitator to connect assessment findings with recent team decisions or handoffs, agree on one specific change, and set a review point. Establish what sponsors will be able to see, and avoid treating individual profiles as fixed labels. Remember that the report provides information to guide your work; it doesn't perform the intervention itself.