# Worklytics vs Larridin vs Microsoft Viva Insights for AI adoption

Comparison · By Nolli research, The Nolli team · Published 2026-10-18 · Updated 2026-10-18 · Prices and features checked 2026-10-16

Canonical page: https://withnolli.com/blog/worklytics-vs-larridin-vs-microsoft-viva-insights

**Short answer.** All three count who uses AI, and they differ in what else they read. Microsoft’s Copilot Dashboard in Viva Insights covers Microsoft’s own AI and turns actions into hours at six minutes each. Worklytics reads usage metadata across several AI tools beside collaboration data. Larridin watches the browser and desktop and, per its pages, compares workflow runs with and without AI. We read their public pages on October 16, 2026.

## The verdict

- **Choose Microsoft Viva Insights: when most of your AI use is Microsoft Copilot.** The Copilot Dashboard is free to view and the only one of the three that publishes the formula behind its impact number. Skip it as your only tool when people also use ChatGPT, Claude or Gemini. It does not count them.
- **Choose Worklytics: when HR or people analytics owns the question and you use several AI tools.** It puts AI use next to meeting and collaboration data, and it publishes a price. Skip it when you need a before-and-after on one workflow. Its impact method is a comparison between teams.
- **Choose Larridin: when the first problem is AI tools nobody told IT about.** It detects tools and personal accounts on the device, and its newer pages describe comparing workflow runs with and without AI. Skip it when you cannot install a browser extension and a desktop agent, or need a price before a demo.

## Key takeaways

1. Of the three, only Microsoft publishes how its impact number is computed: actions counted, times six minutes, times an hourly rate, with Microsoft’s own warning that it is a general estimate.
2. Worklytics and Microsoft say what the smallest group they will show is (8 and 10); we found no minimum group size on the Larridin pages we read.
3. We found no public test of how closely any of the three agrees with a timed baseline, so each answers who uses AI better than it answers whether the work changed.

Three names come up together when a buyer asks how to measure AI adoption: Worklytics, Larridin and Microsoft’s Viva Insights. They are three kinds of product. One reads Microsoft’s own logs. One reads usage metadata that several vendors expose to an admin. One watches the browser and the desktop. Which fits depends on what your AI use looks like, and on which question you carry: who is using it, or whether the work changed.

The short result: all three count use, and only Microsoft shows its arithmetic for turning use into an impact number. The other two describe impact in words and sample screens. Larridin is the one whose pages have moved most. They now describe comparing runs of the same workflow with and without AI. The longer result follows, method first.

> **How we read them.** We read each vendor’s own public pages on October 16, 2026: product pages, pricing pages, documentation, and the vendor’s trust page or blog where it carries a technical claim. We ran none of the products and spoke to no vendor. We used no page that one vendor wrote about another, and no review site. For each product we wrote down eight things: what it measures, what it connects to, who has to approve it, what it says about aggregation, how fresh the data is, how it makes an impact number, what it costs, and what its own pages warn about. Every cell below is a statement about a page, not about the product. Where a page was silent we write “not stated”, which does not mean the feature is missing. Vendor figures with no method or sample, and every dashboard number a vendor labels as an example, are left out.

## Which Microsoft product is in this comparison

The query says Viva Insights. The part of Viva Insights that measures AI is called the Microsoft Copilot Dashboard, and Microsoft groups it with five other tools under the name Copilot Analytics. We found no rename of Viva Insights itself on the Learn pages we read.

> **Viva Insights, Copilot Dashboard and Copilot Analytics.** Per Microsoft Learn: Viva Insights is Microsoft’s employee insights product, with a web app and an app in Teams. The Microsoft Copilot Dashboard is a page in that web app covering readiness, adoption, impact and sentiment. Copilot Analytics is the umbrella for six tools: a readiness and adoption report in the Microsoft 365 admin center, the Copilot Dashboard, an Agent Dashboard, a Consumption Dashboard, out-of-the-box reports, and Advanced Reporting.

Microsoft says neither a paid Viva Insights license nor a Copilot license is needed to view the dashboard. The people it measures are employees who hold a Copilot license, plus Copilot Chat users where that reporting is on. So this comparison covers what Microsoft does for Microsoft’s own AI. That limit shapes most of what follows.

## What each one measures

**What each product’s public pages say it measures** (none, partly or fully)

| | Worklytics | Larridin | Microsoft Viva Insights |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Usage by AI tool | fully | fully | partly |
| Usage by team, role or function | fully | fully | fully |
| Collaboration metadata (meetings, email, chat) | fully | none | fully |
| Time per task or workflow | none | fully | partly |
| Outcomes or quality | partly | partly | partly |
| Survey or self-report built in | none | fully | fully |
| Privacy controls described | fully | fully | fully |
| Price published | fully | none | partly |

Our reading of each vendor’s own pages, October 16, 2026. Full: the page says it plainly. Half: the page says part of it, or the figure is an estimate or example. Empty: we found nothing, which does not prove the feature is absent. Microsoft’s usage is half because it counts Microsoft’s own AI. Its collaboration metrics belong to Viva Insights, not to the Copilot Dashboard. Larridin’s time per task is full because its workflow page says it plainly, but the page shows example data only, and its FAQ still lists business impact as roadmap, so outcomes are half. Microsoft’s price is half: viewing is free, a Viva plan lists a starting price, and Copilot license prices are not on the pages we read.

Read the grid for differences, not totals. Worklytics is the only one whose home ground is collaboration data. Larridin is the only one that describes time per task. Microsoft is the only one that stops at one vendor’s AI, and the only one that publishes the arithmetic. The eight rows do not carry equal weight, so we do not add them up.

## What each one connects to, and who has to say yes

From each vendor’s own pages, October 16, 2026. “Not stated” means we found nothing on the pages we read.

|  | Worklytics | Larridin | Microsoft Viva Insights |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Connects to | Admin and log data from calendar, mail, chat, code and project tools, and AI tools including Copilot, Gemini, ChatGPT and Claude. Pricing page: 50+ integrations, up to 5 on Business. | A browser extension and desktop agent on company devices. For spend, billing and usage data; for engineering, code activity and supported agent sessions. | Microsoft 365 service data on Copilot actions, and Microsoft Entra ID for the org chart. Optional uploads: org data, survey results and business outcome data (.csv). |
| Software on devices | None described. Its pages say no browser plugins and no laptop software. | Yes. Browser extension and desktop agent, rolled out by IT. | Not described on the pages we read. |
| Who has to approve or run it | A tenant admin for each source. For Google Workspace its docs describe an admin installing the app, a domain-wide delegation grant, or a customer-built service account. | IT deploys the sensors to the apps an admin configures. | The AI Administrator (access, minimum group size), the Viva Insights Administrator (org data) and Global Administrators. Senior leaders can get access from Entra ID data; an admin can turn that off. |
| What it says about aggregation | Group or team level, minimum group size 8, identifiers stripped on ingest. The pricing page lists “individual row-level datasets” on Enterprise, which the privacy page does not mention. | Team roll-ups, with individual views off by default on Workflow Intelligence. Its blog says individual data comes only through admin exports with an audit trail. Minimum group size: not stated. | Default minimum group size 10; an admin can set 5 or more. Groups below it show nothing. An exclusion list can hide named users from the aggregates. |
| Freshness and history | First AI metrics within a week of setup, per its AI page. Business plan history: 3 months on the plan card, 12 months in the comparison table. | Scout refreshes every 15 minutes. Workflow Intelligence promises workflows within days and verdicts within weeks. | Rolling 28 days, up to six days late. Processing starts up to seven days after licenses are assigned. Six-month trendlines. |
| Certifications the page names | SOC 2 Type II (pricing FAQ). GDPR and CCPA ready (privacy page). | SOC 2 Type II, GDPR and HIPAA (workflow page). Its Trust Center also lists SOC 3. | Viva Insights page: supports GDPR compliance. The customer is the data controller and Microsoft the processor. |
| Price on its public pages | Free for up to 100 users on calendar data only, with no AI adoption insights in the comparison table. Business from $2,500 a month. Enterprise custom. | Not published. Book a demo; also sold by private offer on Google Cloud Marketplace. | Dashboard needs no Viva Insights or Copilot license to view. The Viva pricing page (US) lists a Workplace Analytics and Employee Feedback plan from $6 per user per month, paid yearly, that includes advanced AI measurement. |

The row that decides rollout speed is the second one. Microsoft and Worklytics read data that admins already control, so the work is permissions. Larridin puts software on devices, so the work is permissions plus a conversation with employees. Settle what is collected with legal and HR, and with your works council if you have one, before anything is switched on. This post is not legal advice.

## How each one gets from use to an impact number

From the same pages. “Impact” is each vendor’s word. Dashboard figures on Larridin’s pages are marked as examples, so none is used here.

|  | Worklytics | Larridin | Microsoft Viva Insights |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| How the number is made | Compares output, throughput or collaboration patterns between high-adoption and low-adoption teams over the same period. | Scout: passive usage combined with user surveys, prompt quality and value feedback. Workflow Intelligence: AI-assisted runs against non-AI runs of the same workflow. Developer Intelligence: engineering output and quality against AI spend. | Copilot actions counted, times six minutes, summed as “assisted hours”, times an hourly rate of $72 by default. Advanced Reporting can relate use to business data you upload. |
| Where the baseline comes from | Not described. The comparison is between teams, not before and after. | Workflow Intelligence: a baseline captured from observed runs. The home page says to compare completed work with the captured baseline before reporting realized benefits. | You supply it, if you upload outcome data. The dashboard itself uses multipliers from Microsoft’s research. |
| Is the formula published | No. | In part. The capacity examples state a 40-hour week and $31 an hour. How verdicts are scored is not stated. | Yes, to the minute for assisted hours. |
| What the vendor’s pages warn | We found no caveat on the AI pages. | AI capacity is not automatically time saved, cash returned or fewer staff. Value depends on baseline, data coverage and how teams use the capacity. | Assisted hours are a general estimate and the method will change. Copilot is not likely to be the only cause of any difference the dashboard shows. |

Credit where due: Larridin’s own home page says that AI capacity is not time saved, and Microsoft’s own page says its hours are a general estimate. The sentence we could not find from Worklytics is the equivalent one. A comparison of high and low adoption teams is a fair first look. It tells you what differs, not what AI did. Our roundup of eight adoption tools has the studies on why the gap between a usage count and a measured change is wide.

## Worklytics: usage metadata beside collaboration data

Worklytics sells workplace analytics, mostly to HR and IT, and added an AI adoption product on top. Its pages say it connects to Microsoft Copilot, Gemini, ChatGPT, Claude and others, tracks use by team and role, and sorts AI activity into work categories such as coding, research, drafting and email. Its public data dictionary lists per-tool counts of days used and number of uses, including Claude Code and Cursor, grouped as assistive, coding and conversational.

What it finds that the others do not. The collaboration layer. The pricing page lists 200+ pre-built collaboration metrics and meeting and manager effectiveness insights, and its AI page says it combines AI usage with calendar, email and project tool signals. If your question is whether teams that use AI more also meet less, or work with different people, this is the only one of the three built to look.

What it misses. The comparison it describes is between teams that use AI more and teams that use it less. That is a correlation. The pages we read describe no baseline taken before rollout and no staggered rollout, so early adopters could differ in other ways. The one outcome example on its AI page, higher ticket throughput for teams that use AI more consistently, comes with no sample or method.

Two smaller points. Its privacy page says Worklytics does not attempt to measure productivity, while its AI pages describe correlating AI use with productivity signals. The two are probably about individuals and groups, so ask which is meant. And the pricing page disagrees with itself: the Business card says best for 100 to 1,000 employees where the FAQ and table say 200 users are included, and the card says three months of history where the table says twelve.

Price. Published. Free for up to 100 users on calendar data only, with no AI adoption insights in its comparison table. Business starts at $2,500 a month and is billed monthly. Enterprise is custom and adds data pipeline access and the on-premises privacy proxy.

## Larridin: the device is the sensor

Larridin began as a way to find AI tools that people use, approved or not. Its Scout page says it covers more than 300 AI tools, tells personal accounts from enterprise ones, and can allow, warn or block at the browser or desktop, with usage data refreshing every 15 minutes. Its home page now offers four starting points: AI spend, AI impact by department, developer intelligence, and a workflow product that finds repeated work to automate.

Two methods sit behind its impact claims, and they differ in kind. In Scout, impact is usage combined with surveys, prompt-quality signals and value feedback, and the page defines productivity as what users report. In Workflow Intelligence, the page says verdicts come from comparing AI-assisted runs of a workflow with non-AI runs of the same one, using time per step and outcome. If that works as described, it is the closest of the three to measuring the work itself. The page shows example data only and states no method for matching runs or deciding what counts as a success. One question to ask: how many non-AI runs does a verdict need? Its on-page example sets 18 assisted runs against 3 without, and the page labels that data as an example.

Privacy, read closely. The workflow page says metadata only, from apps an admin configures, rolled up to teams, with individual views off by default. A March 2026 post on Larridin’s own site says the product takes a snapshot of the AI tool’s page, analyzes it on the device to get proficiency signals, and discards the raw content. Scout’s FAQ says the product does not read information in documents or private messages. Both can be true if “read” means “store”. The sentence you give your works council should come from Larridin in writing.

What it misses. Its FAQ says tracking is computer-based only and misses iOS, and that detection works at the URL level. That FAQ also reads partly as notes from sales calls: several answers say what clients are interested in, and business impact intelligence is marked roadmap, which sits oddly beside the newer workflow pages. It says Larridin can prove causation between AI use and outcomes at three levels of fidelity, the lowest being how much time a team saves. We found no method behind that claim.

Price. Not published. The contact page offers a demo and pricing, and a Google Cloud Marketplace page describes buying through a private offer.

## Microsoft Viva Insights: the formula is on the page

The Copilot Dashboard counts active Copilot users over the past 28 days, sorts them into power, habitual and novice users, and shows adoption by app, group, organization and job function. A power user averages 15 or more Copilot actions a week and used Copilot in at least 9 of the last 12 weeks. The impact page shows actions taken, assisted hours, assisted value and a satisfaction rate from thumbs up and down. That rate appears only with at least 30 responses from at least five people.

What it finds that the others do not. The only fully documented arithmetic. Assisted hours are six minutes per search or summary action and six minutes per creation action, plus the full length of each meeting Copilot summarized. Microsoft ties each six-minute figure to a study it cites, and values the hours at $72 an hour by default, from US Bureau of Labor Statistics data, which you can change. Advanced Reporting adds more than 100 Copilot metrics and a business impact report that relates Copilot use to outcome data you upload, such as ticket resolution time or deal size.

What it misses. Anything that is not Microsoft’s AI. Then the usual limits of a multiplier. Double the summaries and the hours double, whether anyone read them. Microsoft says plainly that the number is a general estimate and the method will change, and that full assisted-hours data needs optional diagnostic data switched on. A known issue under-counted email-draft and summary metrics, including assisted hours, from June 1, 2025 to February 18, 2026. The outcome join exists, but you build the data for it.

Price. Viewing needs no extra license. Copilot licenses cost extra and the pages we read give no price for them. The US Viva pricing page lists a plan, Workplace Analytics and Employee Feedback, from $6 per user per month paid yearly, that includes advanced AI adoption and impact measurement. Which dashboard features need which license is in a table on the Learn page, and it turns mainly on whether you hold 50 or more Copilot or Viva Insights licenses.

## Use against change in the work

**How much each one measures use, and how much it measures change in the work** (x: How much it measures use, 0 to 100; y: How much it measures change in the work, 0 to 100; corners: top-left Little use data, much change, top-right Use and change, bottom-left Neither, bottom-right Much use data, little change)

- Microsoft Viva Insights: x 76, y 38
- Worklytics: x 68, y 47
- Larridin: x 92, y 56
- Nolli: x 52, y 76

Our reading of the pages, not measurements. Left to right: from tools that report little about who uses AI, to tools that detect every tool and account. Bottom to top: from counts of use, to estimates, correlations and surveys, to measures of the work. Larridin sits where its two methods average out: Scout alone would sit lower, Workflow Intelligence higher. Nolli is ours and is placed by the same reading, so weigh that dot as a claim by the author. Only the order of the dots carries meaning.

## How small a group will each one show

- **8**: Worklytics’s stated minimum group size. Its privacy page says analyses come back only at group or team level, and that personal identifiers are stripped when data is first ingested. (source: Worklytics, Employee Data Privacy at Worklytics, accessed October 16, 2026, https://www.worklytics.co/privacy)
- **10**: Microsoft’s default minimum group size for the Copilot Dashboard. An admin can set any number from five up. Groups below the number show no metrics. (source: Microsoft Learn, Manage settings for the Copilot Dashboard, accessed October 16, 2026, https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/viva/insights/advanced/admin/manage-settings-copilot-dashboard)
- **Not stated**: Larridin’s workflow page says every view aggregates to a team and individual views are off. We found no minimum group size on the Larridin pages we read. (source: Larridin, AI Workflow Intelligence, accessed October 16, 2026, https://larridin.com/larridin-workflow-intelligence/)

A minimum group size is the smallest team a dashboard will report on, so that a manager cannot read one person out of an average. Eight and ten protect a team of twelve and little else. On a team of nine, Worklytics shows it and Microsoft by default does not. Ask Larridin for the number in writing.

## Choose this, skip that

- **Choose Microsoft Viva Insights if** you already run Microsoft 365 Copilot and want adoption by team this week at no extra license. Read assisted hours as an estimate. Skip it as your only tool if ChatGPT, Claude or Gemini matter at your company.
- **Choose Worklytics if** people analytics or HR owns the question, you use several AI tools, and you want group-level data with no work content and a price you can read before a sales call. Skip it if you need a before-and-after on one workflow.
- **Choose Larridin if** your first problem is shadow AI, personal accounts and spend, or you want to test whether its workflow comparison holds on your own work. Skip it if device software is off the table or if you need a price first.
- **Choose none of them yet if** you cannot name the workflow whose time and quality you would compare. All three tell you who uses AI. None of them replaces a baseline you take yourself.

## How to combine them

1. **Start with the free count.** If you run Copilot, open the dashboard before you buy anything. It costs no extra license and it documents what “active” means. Do this today: Write down your own definition of active before the first report. Microsoft’s power user is 15 or more actions a week in 9 of the last 12 weeks.
2. **Add a second source only for the gap.** Use Worklytics when people use several AI tools and you want collaboration patterns beside them. Use Larridin when the gap is tools nobody reported. Do not buy both for the same question. Do this today: Name the one question the second tool answers that the first cannot.
3. **Take a baseline on one workflow.** Pick one workflow that runs often. Time ten real cases by hand, then read what the dashboards say about the same team. The baseline is the number the dashboards do not give you, and a staggered rollout gives you a comparison group. Do this today: Compare the hand-timed result with Microsoft’s assisted hours or Worklytics’s correlation. The difference is the size of your estimate error.
4. **Agree who sees what.** Set the minimum group size, who can open a team view, and whether any export can name a person. Do this today: Get the answer from legal and HR in writing before the pilot starts.

## What this reading cannot tell you

We ran none of these products. Every cell above is a statement about a page. A vendor can ship what its page does not mention, and the reverse: Larridin’s pages disagree on whether business impact is live, and Worklytics’s pricing page disagrees with itself. We found no public test of how closely any of the three agrees with a timed baseline, so we cannot say which is more accurate. We did not read any audit report behind the certifications the pages name. We could not find a price for Copilot licenses, or for Larridin at all.

We left out every number that arrives without a method: all dashboard figures on Larridin’s pages (marked as examples), the survey percentages in its blog post, every customer quote, and Worklytics’s peer benchmarks, which the AI page still dates to summer 2026. Microsoft’s six-minute multipliers are used because Microsoft states the studies behind them. A study of 163 people and a study of 147 people on short tasks do not make a finance close.

## Where Nolli sits, and why it is a different category

Nolli is not a fourth column in this comparison. These three read use: Microsoft’s logs, vendors’ usage metadata, the browser and the desktop. Nolli learns how work runs from people’s work on company devices, the email and calendar your company connects, and the logs of the AI agents they use. It then measures the same workflow done by people, by people with AI and by agents, on time, quality and cost per task. That measures the work, not the use. Larridin’s Workflow Intelligence is the nearest of the three, and what separates the products is scope and evidence we cannot judge from outside. Nolli sees less in one place: personal accounts on personal devices are outside its view. Your company decides what it learns from. It has no public price and no published customer results, so there is no number of ours here for you to check. Request a demo to see it on your own work. The AI enablement page and our guide to measuring AI impact say more.

## Questions people ask

**What is the difference between Worklytics, Larridin and Viva Insights?**

Worklytics reads usage metadata from several AI tools beside collaboration data, at group level. Larridin runs a browser extension and desktop agent that detect AI use and, per its pages, compare workflow runs with and without AI. Viva Insights is Microsoft’s product, and its Copilot Dashboard measures Microsoft’s own AI.

**Do I need a Viva Insights license to see Copilot adoption?**

No, per Microsoft Learn. Neither a paid Viva Insights license nor a Copilot license is needed to view the Copilot Dashboard. Benchmarks, agent insights and survey data need at least 50 Copilot licenses or at least 50 Viva Insights licenses.

**Which of the three publishes a price?**

Worklytics does: free for 100 users on calendar data only, Business from $2,500 a month, Enterprise custom. Microsoft lets you view the dashboard without an extra license, and lists a Viva plan from $6 per user per month, paid yearly. Larridin says to book a demo.

**Do these tools read what employees type into AI tools?**

Worklytics says it stores and analyzes no work content, only log data. Larridin says metadata only, and its blog describes analyzing page content on the device and discarding it. Microsoft’s dashboard counts Copilot actions in Microsoft 365 apps. Get each answer in writing.

**Which one measures whether the work improved?**

None proves it from public pages. Larridin’s workflow pages describe comparing runs with and without AI. Microsoft lets you upload outcome data and relate it to Copilot use. Worklytics compares teams that use AI more with teams that use it less. Each leaves the baseline to you.

## Sources

- "AI Adoption Dashboard for Enterprise Teams." Worklytics, accessed October 16, 2026. https://www.worklytics.co/measureai
- "AI Adoption Metrics for Your Organization." Worklytics, accessed October 16, 2026. https://www.worklytics.co/ai-adoption
- "Worklytics Pricing." Worklytics, accessed October 16, 2026. https://www.worklytics.co/pricing
- "Worklytics: Workplace Analytics for IT, HR & Leaders." Worklytics, accessed October 16, 2026. https://www.worklytics.co/
- "Employee Data Privacy at Worklytics." Worklytics, accessed October 16, 2026. https://www.worklytics.co/privacy
- "AI Metrics (data dictionary)." Worklytics Documentation, accessed October 16, 2026. https://docs.worklytics.co/knowledge-base/data-dictionary/ai-aggregates-table.md
- "Direct Connections (Google Workspace)." Worklytics Documentation, accessed October 16, 2026. https://docs.worklytics.co/knowledge-base/connectors/gemini-in-workspace-apps/direct-connection.md
- "AI Adoption Dashboard: Track AI Usage & Cost by Team & Role." Larridin, accessed October 16, 2026. https://larridin.com/ai-adoption/
- "Scout: Measure AI Usage, Skills, and Impact." Larridin, accessed October 16, 2026. https://larridin.com/scout
- "Frequently Asked Questions." Larridin, accessed October 16, 2026. https://larridin.com/faq
- "Prove AI’s Impact Across Your Human and Agent Workforce." Larridin, accessed October 16, 2026. https://larridin.com/
- "AI Workflow Intelligence." Larridin, accessed October 16, 2026. https://larridin.com/larridin-workflow-intelligence/
- "How to Deploy AI Measurement Without Disrupting Your Workforce." Larridin, March 29, 2026. https://larridin.com/ai-workflow-mapping/deploy-ai-measurement-without-disrupting-workforce
- "Larridin Trust Center." Larridin, accessed October 16, 2026. https://trust.larridin.com/
- "Larridin on Google Cloud Marketplace." Larridin, accessed October 16, 2026. https://larridin.com/marketplace/
- "Connect to the Microsoft Copilot Dashboard for Microsoft 365 customers." Microsoft Learn, accessed October 16, 2026. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/viva/insights/org-team-insights/copilot-dashboard
- "Copilot Analytics introduction." Microsoft Learn, accessed October 16, 2026. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/viva/insights/copilot-analytics-introduction
- "Introduction to Viva Insights." Microsoft Learn, accessed October 16, 2026. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/viva/insights/introduction
- "Manage settings for the Microsoft Copilot Dashboard, Agent Dashboard, and Viva Insights web app." Microsoft Learn, accessed October 16, 2026. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/viva/insights/advanced/admin/manage-settings-copilot-dashboard
- "Microsoft Viva plans and pricing." Microsoft, accessed October 16, 2026. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-viva/pricing
- "The system for AI enablement teams." Nolli, accessed October 16, 2026. https://withnolli.com/solutions/ai-enablement