GITNUXSOFTWARE ADVICE
HR In IndustryTop 10 Best Salary Benchmarking Software of 2026
Top 10 salary benchmarking software ranked for compensation research, pay-rate comparisons, and budgeting. Includes Compa, Carta Total Comp, Korn Ferry Pay.
How we ranked these tools
Core product claims cross-referenced against official documentation, changelogs, and independent technical reviews.
Analyzed video reviews and hundreds of written evaluations to capture real-world user experiences with each tool.
AI persona simulations modeled how different user types would experience each tool across common use cases and workflows.
Final rankings reviewed and approved by our editorial team with authority to override AI-generated scores based on domain expertise.
Score: Features 40% · Ease 30% · Value 30%
Gitnux may earn a commission through links on this page — this does not influence rankings. Editorial policy
Compa is the most reliable pick if you need controlled, repeatable compensation benchmarking with job mapping across locations, whereas Carta Total Comp fits compensation planning teams that want repeatable cycles from connected HR and equity inputs, and Korn Ferry Pay is the better match for enterprise teams running recurring market pricing cycles across job families and geographies.
Editor’s top 3 picks
Three quick recommendations before you dive into the full comparison below — each one leads on a different dimension.
Compa
Benchmarking workflow that ties benchmark jobs to internal roles and enforces approval steps across compensation cycles.
Built for fits when compensation teams need controlled, repeatable benchmarking with job mapping across multiple locations..
Carta Total Comp
Editor pickEnd-to-end compensation cycle planning that ties role level, peer selection, and equity outputs into one review workflow.
Built for fits when compensation planning teams need cycle repeatability with connected HR and equity inputs..
Korn Ferry Pay
Editor pickJob-aligned benchmarking outputs that connect market pricing guidance to pay ranges tied to job architecture.
Built for fits when compensation teams run recurring market pricing cycles across job families and geographies..
Comparison Table
Compa
SMBCompa provides compensation benchmarking and pay range management for employers.
Benchmarking workflow that ties benchmark jobs to internal roles and enforces approval steps across compensation cycles.
Compa’s core workflow takes compensation survey data and standardizes it into comparable benchmark jobs, then links those jobs to internal role definitions for market pricing. Peer group selection and geographic adjustments are built into the benchmarking flow rather than handled as separate spreadsheet steps. Admin users can manage permissions around benchmark edits and approvals so compensation cycle changes do not get mixed with ad hoc analysis.
A tradeoff appears in governance overhead. Teams that already have strong job architecture and clean job code mapping will move faster, while teams with inconsistent leveling or unclear job families may need more preprocessing before benchmarking stabilizes. Compa works best when compensation changes repeat on a cadence and when HRIS integration or structured role data feeds the job mapping step.
- +End-to-end benchmarking workflow from survey inputs to published market ranges
- +Peer group and benchmark job mapping reduces spreadsheet rework
- +Governance controls separate benchmark edits from approvals
- +Supports geographic differential and remote pay zone adjustments
- –Sensitive to job architecture quality and job code mapping cleanliness
- –Less suitable for one-off ad hoc comparisons outside a repeat cycle
- –Requires disciplined change management for ongoing market updates
Global compensation teams
Update market pricing across regions
Faster regional comp cycles
HR operations and analytics
Benchmark new job families
Consistent leveling decisions
Show 2 more scenarios
Total rewards leadership
Approve compensation changes
Reduced change risk
Permissions and approval workflows keep benchmark edits separate from published compensation updates.
Finance and budget owners
Plan headcount and pay ranges
More predictable hiring costs
Published market ranges support budget modeling that tracks base and total cash compensation targets.
Best for: Fits when compensation teams need controlled, repeatable benchmarking with job mapping across multiple locations.
Carta Total Comp
SMBCarta Total Comp supports compensation benchmarking, equity visibility, and pay planning.
End-to-end compensation cycle planning that ties role level, peer selection, and equity outputs into one review workflow.
Carta Total Comp targets compensation planning teams that need market pricing outputs tied to job leveling and compensation ranges. The tool’s output supports pay range decisions with peer group and geography-aware comparisons for total cash and equity compensation. Automation is geared toward keeping benchmark inputs and comp outputs synchronized across review periods so late-cycle spreadsheets are less likely.
A tradeoff appears when organizations need custom job architecture mappings or non-standard benchmark cuts, because setup time increases to align job codes, levels, and peer group definitions. Carta works best when HR systems already provide role, level, and location signals and when compensation teams want repeatable outputs each cycle.
- +Total comp view merges base, variable, and equity schedules
- +Job leveling alignment keeps benchmark comparisons consistent
- +HR data connectivity reduces manual reformatting across cycles
- +Approval workflows support controlled compensation changes
- –Custom benchmark cuts take more configuration than standard flows
- –Governance requires disciplined peer group and level definitions
- –Complex organizations may need extra time to validate mappings
- –Some edge cases depend on integration completeness
Global compensation analysts
Run location-aware market pricing reviews
More consistent range decisions
People ops compensation teams
Plan promotions with total comp context
Faster promotion approvals
Show 2 more scenarios
Equity operations
Reconcile grants to compensation views
Fewer spreadsheet reconciliation steps
Connects equity inputs so total comp comparisons include grant economics during compensation planning.
HRIS integration owners
Keep benchmark data synchronized
Lower data maintenance overhead
Automates periodic updates so role and pay inputs refresh without manual data wrangling.
Best for: Fits when compensation planning teams need cycle repeatability with connected HR and equity inputs.
Korn Ferry Pay
enterpriseCloud-based compensation benchmarking and pay structuring software.
Job-aligned benchmarking outputs that connect market pricing guidance to pay ranges tied to job architecture.
Korn Ferry Pay centers on salary benchmarking deliverables that feed market pricing and range decisions using Korn Ferry’s compensation data assets. It aligns benchmarking work to job architecture needs, which reduces manual translation between benchmark jobs and internal roles. For organizations managing geographic differential and location-based pay considerations, it is built to incorporate market context into pay decisions.
A key tradeoff is that governance and job mapping discipline are required to keep results consistent across teams and locations. The best usage situation is an annual or semiannual compensation cycle where HR and compensation teams need repeatable benchmark-to-range outputs for peer groups and role families.
- +Benchmark outputs align to job architecture and leveling work
- +Supports repeatable compensation cycle market pricing decisions
- +Geographic differential context is built into pay guidance workflows
- +Produces pay range inputs tied to compensation philosophy
- –Effective results depend on consistent job code mapping
- –Complex multi-country setups need stronger internal governance
- –Some benchmark-to-range workflows require careful calibration
- –Automation depth varies by integration maturity with HR systems
Global compensation teams
Set location-based pay for multiple countries
More consistent location pay decisions
HR and compensation analysts
Translate survey data into pay ranges
Faster range updates
Show 1 more scenario
Executive compensation governance
Align pay recommendations to philosophy
Cleaner decision audit trails
Uses benchmark guidance to keep comp adjustments consistent with stated principles.
Best for: Fits when compensation teams run recurring market pricing cycles across job families and geographies.
Salary.com CompAnalyst
enterpriseCompAnalyst supports salary benchmarking, market pricing, and compensation planning.
Built-in job mapping to benchmark jobs with location-based differential handling for compensation cycle outputs.
Salary.com CompAnalyst combines market pricing inputs with built-in compensation modeling so HR teams can map roles to benchmark jobs and produce pay range guidance. The workflow supports peer group selection, geographic differential handling, and percentile-based market positioning for both base salary and broader total cash views.
Role matching and job data normalization reduce manual effort during compensation cycle updates. CompAnalyst is geared toward recurring compensation benchmarking rather than one-off reporting.
- +Benchmark outputs support percentile and pay range decisions with job-to-market mapping
- +Geographic differential modeling fits location-based pay and regional compensation reviews
- +Compensation cycle workflows reduce repeated manual rework across quarters
- +Normalization steps for role attributes improve consistency across peer group comparisons
- –Job matching quality depends on clean job architecture inputs and consistent job codes
- –Exports and downstream integration can require additional tooling for deeper HRIS automation
- –Advanced scenario modeling is constrained by the available benchmark job constructs
- –Governance for who can change mappings needs deliberate RBAC and review process
Best for: Fits when compensation teams need recurring benchmark job matching and percentile pay range outputs.
ERI Salary Assessor
enterpriseERI Salary Assessor provides occupational pay data for salary analysis and benchmarking.
Benchmark job matching designed around ERI job structures to produce consistent market percentiles from curated role inputs.
ERI Salary Assessor is a salary benchmarking workflow that turns job information into compensation market pricing outputs. It centers on structured job matching to comparable benchmark jobs so HR and compensation teams can build market-informed salary range guidance.
It also supports peer group selection and geographic differentiation so organizations can model location-based pay and remote work effects within defined zones. Results are designed for recurring compensation cycles with repeatable inputs and standardized reporting outputs.
- +Job-to-benchmark matching workflow reduces reliance on manual market mapping
- +Geographic differential handling supports location-based pay decisions
- +Peer group selection helps isolate meaningful competitive labor markets
- +Repeatable compensation-cycle outputs support standardized stakeholder reporting
- –Job code and title inputs must be curated to avoid mismatches
- –Automation depth depends on how ERI Salary Assessor is integrated into existing HR processes
- –Complex peer group scenarios can require additional analyst time
- –Less suited for teams needing open-ended analysis beyond standardized outputs
Best for: Fits when compensation teams need structured job matching and location-aware market pricing for repeatable range decisions.
Mercer Comptryx
enterpriseGlobal compensation benchmarking database for job pricing.
Job matching tied to Mercer benchmark jobs, with governed access to benchmarking datasets and export artifacts.
Mercer Comptryx supports compensation benchmarking workflows with Mercer pay data and job matching for structured benchmark jobs. It centers on configuring peer group views and producing market pricing outputs tied to job architecture and location-based pay logic.
The solution supports HRIS integration to keep job and organizational attributes aligned with compensation decisions. Administration focuses on governance around survey inputs, access to benchmark datasets, and auditability of export and configuration changes.
- +Strong job matching workflow for mapping internal roles to benchmark jobs
- +Mercer pay data supports market pricing outputs for peer group comparisons
- +HRIS integration helps keep job attributes aligned with benchmarking snapshots
- +Governance controls cover who can access benchmark datasets and exports
- –Comptryx configuration depends on disciplined job architecture and job code mapping
- –Benchmark cut granularity can feel limited for niche survey methodology needs
- –Location-based pay modeling requires careful setup of pay zones and rules
- –Complex peer group modeling increases training time for compensation teams
Best for: Fits when enterprises need governed compensation benchmarking using Mercer job matching and HRIS-fed job attributes.
Figures
SMBFigures combines compensation benchmarking with pay management and reporting.
Benchmark job selection plus percentile reporting in one workflow for range-setting and compensation cycle reuse.
Figures turns compensation benchmarking into an end-to-end workflow for setting pay ranges, validating market rates, and rolling those outputs into ongoing compensation cycles. The service focuses on job matching, benchmark job selection, and market percentile reporting so HR teams can explain why a given number belongs in their pay structure.
Figures also supports location-based differential thinking for remote and mixed geography roles through segmentation of market signals by workforce location. The product is built for operational use in day-to-day HR, not just one-off reports.
- +Workflow-oriented outputs that tie market rates to pay range decisions
- +Job matching and benchmark selection designed for compensation benchmarking
- +Market percentile reporting supports internal justification during reviews
- +Geography-aware comparisons for mixed-location roles
- –Admin effort is higher when job architecture needs frequent updates
- –API depth is limited for advanced automation beyond the core workflow
- –Audit log coverage is not prominent for every compensation decision step
- –Data freshness controls require process discipline to avoid stale benchmarks
Best for: Fits when HR teams need repeatable pay range decisions from benchmark jobs across geographies.
Payfactors
SMBCompensation management platform with market pricing and benchmarking.
Benchmark job matching that ties internal roles to market jobs for market pricing and range construction.
Payfactors is a salary and compensation benchmarking system focused on translating pay survey data into market pricing views for organizations. Its core workflow centers on benchmark job identification, market range building, and recurring comparisons that support compensation cycles and hiring decisions.
The solution is designed for HR and compensation teams that need location-adjusted outputs and consistent peer group comparisons across roles. Integration and automation capabilities focus on connecting pay inputs from internal job coding and operational HR data with benchmark datasets.
- +Benchmark job matching supports market pricing outputs for many role types
- +Location-aware adjustments help keep ranges consistent across geographies
- +Repeatable compensation cycle workflows support ongoing market reviews
- +Survey cut and peer group comparison views improve interpretability
- –Job mapping quality heavily affects benchmark accuracy and range outcomes
- –Automation depth depends on available integration paths for internal HR systems
- –Administrators need careful governance for job code and benchmark alignment
- –Less suited for organizations wanting manual, one-off market studies only
Best for: Fits when compensation teams need ongoing market pricing with consistent job mapping and geographic range handling.
Aon Radford Compensation Database
enterpriseProvides compensation survey data and benchmark analysis for technology and life sciences employers.
Standardized benchmark job constructs that reduce drift during job matching for recurring market pricing reviews.
Aon Radford Compensation Database delivers pay data and benchmark job intelligence that HR and compensation teams use to set salary benchmarks by geography and role. It is built around survey-based compensation benchmarking with standardized job constructs so users can align job attributes to the closest available benchmark jobs.
The database workflow supports compensation survey cuts and market pricing comparisons across base and total cash compensation. Administrators can refresh and maintain coverage needed for recurring compensation cycles.
- +Job-to-benchmark mapping designed for consistent compensation benchmarking workflows
- +Coverage supports location-based pay and geographic differential comparisons
- +Survey cut logic supports repeatable market pricing across compensation cycles
- +Dataset oriented to total cash and base salary decision-making
- –Job matching quality depends on clean job code mapping and role attribute completeness
- –Limited visibility into underlying survey methodology within the database UI
- –Automation for HRIS-driven updates is not the primary interaction pattern
- –Governance for peer group changes requires process discipline from admins
Best for: Fits when compensation teams need repeatable market benchmarking using standardized job constructs and geographic differentials.
Compport
enterpriseProvides compensation benchmarking, pay ranges, and compensation cycle management.
Benchmark-driven compensation cycle workflow that ties survey inputs to job matching outputs for range updates.
Compport is a salary benchmarking software option from a market research company that focuses on turn-key compensation data and benchmark job practices rather than generic reporting. It supports benchmarking decisions by organizing survey inputs into comparable peer groups, location adjustments, and market percentile views.
Compport also supports operational workflows for compensation cycle use cases like pay range updates and job matching outputs. Automation depth depends on how benchmarking inputs and job mapping artifacts are fed into the workflow, since HRIS sync and API capabilities are the key integration lever.
- +Clear benchmark job outputs that reduce ad hoc salary comparisons
- +Location-aware market pricing views for geographic differential decisions
- +Survey-to-peer group organization to support consistent market cuts
- +Compensation cycle workflows for updating ranges from benchmark results
- –API surface and automation options are less visible than in top-tier competitors
- –Job matching accuracy depends on the quality of job code mapping inputs
- –Governance tooling like RBAC and audit log controls are not emphasized
- –Less suited for teams needing highly customized benchmark methodologies
Best for: Fits when compensation teams want structured benchmark job outputs and consistent market cuts without building a custom pipeline.
Conclusion
After evaluating 10 hr in industry, Compa stands out as our overall top pick — it scored highest across our combined criteria of features, ease of use, and value, which is why it sits at #1 in the rankings above.
Use the comparison table and detailed reviews above to validate the fit against your own requirements before committing to a tool.
How to Choose the Right salary benchmarking software
Salary benchmarking software helps compensation teams translate salary survey data into market pricing guidance and decision-ready salary range outputs. This buyer's guide compares Compa, Carta Total Comp, Korn Ferry Pay, Salary.com CompAnalyst, ERI Salary Assessor, Mercer Comptryx, Figures, Payfactors, Aon Radford Compensation Database, and Compport across repeatable workflows for job matching and compensation cycle reuse.
The evaluation focuses on workflow control and governance depth, especially where benchmark jobs map to internal roles and where approvals and cycle publishing introduce repeatability. Integration breadth and automation surface also carry weight, since HR inputs like role attributes, peer selection, and equity outputs often need to flow into the benchmarking steps without manual rework.
Salary benchmarking software that converts market pricing data into governed pay ranges
Salary benchmarking software connects benchmark jobs to internal roles so compensation teams can produce market percentiles and location-based pay guidance for compensation cycles. Tools like Compa and Salary.com CompAnalyst emphasize job-to-market mapping and percentile or pay range outputs that support recurring decisions.
Many implementations also depend on job code mapping quality and job architecture alignment, because benchmark outputs become sensitive to role normalization and geographic differential modeling. Compa adds an approval-enforced benchmarking workflow across compensation cycles, while Carta Total Comp ties role level selection, peer selection, and equity into one compensation planning review workflow.
Governed benchmarking workflow, job-to-benchmark mapping, and automation surface
Salary benchmarking software becomes decision-ready only when benchmark jobs connect to internal roles, and that connection stays consistent through compensation cycles. Tools like Compa and Mercer Comptryx put governance around the mapping and publishing steps so teams can repeat the same market pricing workflow across rounds.
Approval-enforced benchmarking workflow across compensation cycles
Compa enforces approvals tied to the benchmarking workflow so published market ranges stay controlled across compensation cycles. Compport also ties survey inputs to job matching outputs for range updates, but Compa’s end-to-end workflow control is the differentiator for repeatability.
Compensation cycle planning that ties peer selection and equity outputs
Carta Total Comp connects role level selection, peer selection, and equity outputs into one compensation planning review workflow. Compa also supports controlled benchmarking and peer group mapping, but Carta’s end-to-end cycle planning focus is more centered on equity and total comp review.
Job architecture alignment that keeps market outputs consistent
Korn Ferry Pay produces job-aligned benchmarking outputs that connect market pricing guidance to pay ranges tied to job architecture. Salary.com CompAnalyst similarly anchors benchmark jobs to internal job mapping, but it relies heavily on clean job architecture inputs and consistent job codes.
Location handling for geographic differential and pay guidance
Salary.com CompAnalyst includes geographic differential modeling built into compensation cycle outputs that support location-based pay decisions. ERI Salary Assessor and Payfactors both include geographic differential handling for location-aware market pricing, but Salary.com’s integration into recurring percentile and pay range outputs is more explicit in the workflow.
Benchmark cut configuration and granularity control
Carta Total Comp supports custom benchmark cuts, which can add configuration effort versus standard flows. Figures emphasizes benchmark job selection plus percentile reporting for range-setting, but it limits advanced automation depth beyond the core workflow.
Use-case driven selection around workflow control and integration depth
The fastest way to select salary benchmarking software is to map the workflow steps compensation teams repeat every cycle. Tools that tie benchmark jobs to internal roles and enforce approvals reduce rework when survey inputs, peer choices, and publishing steps must stay consistent.
Select governance-first tooling for repeatable publishing
Choose Compa when approvals and a repeatable end-to-end benchmarking workflow across compensation cycles are required. If governed access to benchmarking datasets and export artifacts is the core governance need, Mercer Comptryx fits better with its job matching workflow and governed benchmarking dataset access.
Pick total comp cycle tools when equity and peer selection are in scope
Choose Carta Total Comp when role level selection, peer selection, and equity outputs must be reviewed inside the same compensation cycle workflow. This is a different philosophy than tools focused mainly on benchmark job mapping and percentile outputs, where ERI Salary Assessor and Figures center on structured job-to-benchmark matching and reporting.
Validate job code mapping quality before committing to job-aligned outputs
Choose Korn Ferry Pay when job architecture alignment and job-family repeatability are already strong and job code mapping is disciplined. Choose Salary.com CompAnalyst when recurring benchmark job matching and percentile pay range outputs are required, but plan for dependency on clean job architecture inputs and consistent job codes.
Stress-test geographic pay zones against the location workflow used by the team
Choose Salary.com CompAnalyst when geographic differential modeling must be reflected in compensation cycle outputs for location-based pay decisions. Choose ERI Salary Assessor or Aon Radford Compensation Database when location-aware market pricing is required alongside structured job matching for repeatable range decisions.
Confirm how much benchmark cut configuration is feasible per cycle
Choose Carta Total Comp when the team can sustain the configuration effort required for custom benchmark cuts. Choose Figures or Compport when the priority is benchmark job selection and standardized range updates without building a custom pipeline.
Who benefits from governed salary benchmarking workflows
Compensation teams benefit most when benchmarking outputs are tied to internal roles and published through controlled cycle steps. The tools in this list differ in how they connect peer selection, job architecture alignment, and equity outputs to the benchmark workflow.
Compensation operations teams that publish market ranges every compensation cycle
Compa and Mercer Comptryx fit when repeatable benchmarking requires governed workflow control and repeatable mapping from benchmark jobs to internal roles.
Compensation planning teams running total comp reviews with equity inputs
Carta Total Comp fits when role level selection, peer selection, and equity outputs must be tied into one review workflow so market pricing guidance and equity planning stay aligned.
Enterprise HR organizations with established job architecture and job code standards
Korn Ferry Pay and Salary.com CompAnalyst produce stronger job-aligned benchmarking outputs when job code mapping cleanliness supports consistent market percentile and pay range decisions.
Global compensation teams handling location-based pay zones
Salary.com CompAnalyst and ERI Salary Assessor support geographic differential handling inside their benchmarking outputs so location-aware range setting can be repeated across regions.
Common failure modes in salary benchmarking software rollouts
Most rollout issues come from mismatched expectations about how job mapping quality affects market outcomes. Benchmark-driven tools depend on job code and title inputs being curated, and failures show up as unstable benchmark matches and inconsistent percentile outputs.
Treating job matching as interchangeable work across cycles
Compa and Mercer Comptryx rely on benchmark job mapping that stays consistent through repeat cycles, so job architecture changes and job code mapping drift will break output stability. Plan for mapping governance changes before a cycle publishes.
Underestimating how geographic differential requirements change export and decision workflows
Salary.com CompAnalyst includes geographic differential modeling in compensation cycle outputs, while tools with location-aware handling like ERI Salary Assessor still depend on curated role inputs. Validate the location workflow early to prevent misaligned pay guidance across regions.
Over-choosing custom benchmark cut configurations without cycle capacity
Carta Total Comp can require more configuration for custom benchmark cuts than standard flows, which can slow cycle throughput when comp teams operate under tight timelines. Use the standard flows first unless cut customization capacity is already available.
Buying for automation when the integration surface is limited
Figures and Payfactors have limited API depth for advanced automation beyond the core workflow, so HRIS data flow may still need process work. Map the expected automation steps to the available workflow exports before selecting.
How We Selected and Ranked These Tools
We evaluated Compa, Carta Total Comp, Korn Ferry Pay, Salary.com CompAnalyst, ERI Salary Assessor, Mercer Comptryx, Figures, Payfactors, Aon Radford Compensation Database, and Compport on features first, then ease and value. Features took 40% weight by scoring end-to-end workflow control such as approval steps across compensation cycles and the strength of benchmark job mapping to internal roles.
Ease took 30% weight by assessing how directly each tool supports recurring compensation cycles without turning clean job mapping into ongoing manual work. Value took 30% weight by comparing how much cycle output capability each tool includes per workflow effort, and Compa earned the top position with its end-to-end benchmarking workflow and approval-enforced repeatability that ties benchmark jobs to internal roles across compensation cycles.
Frequently Asked Questions About salary benchmarking software
How do Compa and Payfactors differ in the way they construct benchmark peer groups?
Which tools support compensation cycle workflows with role and level planning built into the process?
How do ERI Salary Assessor and Figures handle location-based pay for remote and mixed-geography roles?
When data freshness becomes a governance problem, how do Mercer Comptryx and Aon Radford handle refresh and change control?
What breaks if job-to-benchmark job mapping is wrong or incomplete in a compensation cycle?
How do integrations and APIs affect HRIS-connected workflows in Mercer Comptryx and Compport?
Which tools provide governance controls for approvals and user access during benchmarking and publishing?
How do Korn Ferry Pay and ERI Salary Assessor differ in translating benchmarking outputs into pay range decisions?
Where does data model extensibility matter for Salary benchmarking operations, and which tools support it best?
Tools reviewed
Primary sources checked during evaluation.
Referenced in the comparison table and product reviews above.
- Finance Financial ServicesTop 10 Best Salary Payroll Software of 2026
- Technology Digital MediaTop 10 Best Computer Benchmarking Software of 2026
- HR In IndustryTop 10 Best Compensation Budgeting Software of 2026
- Employment WorkforceTop 10 Best Job Pricing Software of 2026
- HR In IndustryTop 10 Best Human Resources Software of 2026
Keep exploring
Comparing two specific tools?
Software Alternatives
See head-to-head software comparisons with feature breakdowns, pricing, and our recommendation for each use case.
Explore software alternatives→In this category
HR In Industry alternatives
See side-by-side comparisons of hr in industry tools and pick the right one for your stack.
Compare hr in industry tools→