Skip to content
Sign in

Product · Quest Arena

Four people, one chart, no winner

Put four colleagues on the same radar and the shapes never match. That is the point: the Arena is built to show that different is not worse, which is a hard thing to say in a performance review and an easy thing to see in a picture.

Play the Arena
  • Complementary, not ranked
  • Built from verified skills
  • Try it with animals first

Different skills.
Stronger teams.

Complementary, not ranked

The chart has no total. Nobody comes out on top, because the question it answers is what a team is made of rather than who is best.

Built from verified skills

The chart opens on assessments people actually passed; self-declared levels appear only if someone unticks Verified skills only. It is a picture of evidence, not of opinions.

Try it with animals first

The version on the home page compares a Rhino and an Ostrich, which makes the conclusion obvious before you apply it to people you work with.

Four people, one chart, no winner

Put four colleagues on the same radar and the shapes never match. That is the finding, not a flaw in the display. A team is a set of different shapes that together cover more than any one of them does alone.

The Arena is built to show that, which is why it does not produce a ranking. There is no combined score, no first place, and no way to read one person as better than another from it.

Sample team. Each person’s Piko comes from a pillar they lead, and no two share one.

Built from verified skills

The chart opens on levels people passed assessments for, with Verified skills only ticked. Nothing on it is inferred from activity — logging in a lot does not make a shape bigger — and self-declared levels come in only when someone unticks that box, with the screen saying so.

That default is what makes the comparison usable in a real conversation. If any part of it were self-rated, the first response would be that somebody rated themselves generously, and the discussion would be about the data instead of the team.

Where the underlying gap data comes from

Every point on every shape traces back to a specific assessment attempt at a specific level, with a timestamp. There is no aggregate that cannot be opened up and explained.

That traceability is what makes the chart safe to show to the people on it. Anyone can ask why their shape looks the way it does and get an answer that consists of facts rather than an algorithm nobody can inspect.

Reading a gap correctly

A dip shared by all four is a team gap and probably a hiring or training decision. A dip in one person where the others are strong is a pairing opportunity and costs nothing to act on.

Those are different problems with different answers, and they look almost identical in a spreadsheet of averages. Seeing four shapes at once is what separates them.

What it is not for

It is not a performance review input, and using it as one is the fastest way to make everyone stop taking assessments honestly. The moment a verified level affects a rating, the incentive shifts from proving capability to protecting a number.

The product is deliberately built to resist that: levels are earned individually, never assigned, and the Arena shows complementary shapes rather than a league table.

A dip all four share
One dip, where others are strong

Try it before you use it on people

The Arena on this site runs with animals rather than colleagues, which is not a gimmick. Comparing four real people is a conversation that needs a bit of care, and it is better to understand what the chart does and does not say before you open it in a team meeting.

The mechanics are identical. Only the names are different.

Play the Arena on the home page, then run it on your team.

Play the Arena