DISC, for the whole team
Every vendor shows you a screenshot of a team map and a form to talk to sales. This one is the real thing: each teammate takes a 6-minute DISC assessment, and the map builds itself as they finish. Style mix, comfort zones, friction pairs, meeting norms. Free for the whole team.
No signup, no credit card 40 questions, about 6 minutes each Normatively scored, limits stated
This is the full product running on a fictional team of six, computed in your browser by the same engine your real map uses. Open Manage members to swap people in and out, switch the objective on the Goal Fit chapter, and watch every number recompute.
Nobody wakes up wanting a personality test. They want a specific problem to move. Here are the five we are built around, each mapped to the exact part of the report that does the work, so you can check the claim on the live sample above before anyone on your team spends six minutes.
Help me understand why the same two people keep colliding
The Dynamics chapter reads every notable pair on the channel where friction is plausible: decision pace, candour, evidence versus energy. Each pair opens into two directed playbooks, one for each side of the relationship, already written.
Dynamics chapter · pair readsHelp me run a team session that actually lands
The Playbook chapter is the session: meeting and decision norms derived from your actual mix, each rule tagged with the statistic that produced it, plus a discussion guide with what to listen for. Print it, book forty minutes, run it.
Playbook chapter · operating guideShow me what this team is built for, and what nobody owns
The wheel shades your team’s collective comfort zone and names the style nobody covers, with its concrete cost. The Goal Fit read then checks the mix against the objective you pick, from shipping reliably to turning a situation around.
Overview + Goal Fit chaptersHelp me onboard someone into how this team works
One link adds the new person to the map, and the working-with-each-style guides tell the team how to work with them from day one, in both directions. No workshop required, no waiting for the next offsite.
Playbook chapter · style guidesGive me a tool I can defend without booking a sales call
Published prices, a normatively scored instrument, stated limits, and the full report visible on this page before anyone signs up. If a sceptic on your team asks how it is scored, the answer is written down, not behind a certification.
This page · the honesty panel belowA useful team report has to survive its most sceptical reader. Every layer below ends with how the number is actually computed, because a map a team can check is a map a team will use.
Every member sits on one wheel, and the mix is counted: who leads with Dominance, Influence, Steadiness, Conscientiousness, and how strongly. Blends read as blends. A near-even profile is called a near-even profile rather than being forced into a box.
Normative scoring means members are genuinely comparable. Strength is shown out of 100 and labelled as style strength, never as a percentile.
The shaded arc on the wheel is your team’s collective comfort zone. Beside it, three lists: the work this group does naturally, the work that costs deliberate effort, and the work nobody owns. The missing style is named with its consequence, because that gap is where projects quietly stall.
Derived from team-level scale means against fixed bands, so the zone is the same for everyone who looks at it.
Fast movers and steady builders. Task first and people first. Two spectra place every member and the team’s centre, and when the room straddles both poles the map says so, because a barbell team runs brilliantly or bruisingly depending on whether it has norms.
Pace is D plus I against S plus C; focus is D plus C against I plus S. The same axes the wheel is built on, made explicit.
Every notable pair gets a dignified read on a named channel, with both directed playbooks attached. From four members, the map also checks for a faultline: a split where the same people line up on every axis, which is the pattern that turns pressure into camps.
Development framing throughout. No pair is ever labelled incompatible, and most teams get no faultline flag at all, which is worth knowing too.
The map ends in rules, not adjectives: how this specific mix should make decisions, run meetings, give feedback and handle conflict. Every rule carries the statistic that fired it, so a sceptical team can check the working. A next-addition read names the style the team would most benefit from adding.
Rules are selected by your numbers from a bank written for each pattern, at most two per bucket, so the guide stays runnable rather than exhaustive.
Most team DISC reports are built on forced-choice questionnaires whose scores cannot legitimately be compared between people, then compare people all day. Ours is normatively scored, which fixes the contradiction. Here is the whole claim, both halves.
A 40-item, independently rated questionnaire measuring the four DISC work styles, scored so that teammates sit on one common scale. A shared language for pace and focus that teams genuinely use in conversation afterwards. Team reads derived from stated rules over your actual numbers, with every claim carrying its basis. A development tool your team can read together the same afternoon.
A predictor of job or team performance: no DISC instrument has published that evidence, including ours. A percentile ranking: we show style strength out of 100 and say so, rather than borrowing norms nobody measured. A hiring screen: style describes how people work, not how well, and the report’s footer forbids selection use in plain words. When you want the outcome-linked research, use our Big Five team map: same rail, same afternoon.
Type a team name in the box above. You instantly get an invite link for teammates and a private map link for you. No account, no email required, nothing to install.
about 30 secondsEach person answers 40 plain-language questions on any device and keeps their own full style report, theirs from the moment they finish. Nobody sits waiting for the last straggler.
about 6 minutes eachThe map renders from the second person and recomputes as each teammate lands: mix, comfort zones, pairs, norms, goal fit. Bring it to the next team meeting and read it as a group.
same afternoonA 5-to-20 person team has six realistic options. Here is what each one costs, whether a manager can run it alone, and what you are actually holding at the end.
| Option | Published price | The team deliverable | Manager self-serve? | Time to insight |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Everything DiSC via a facilitator | About $90 per person plus about $150 per group report, commonly with facilitation on top | Group maps exist, but the deliverable is a PDF and the analysis leans on a facilitated session | Partly. Reports are bought through partner administrators; the useful layer expects a facilitator | Scheduled around a workshop |
| Extended DISC / TTI via a consultant | Quote-only, through reseller networks | Team maps and wheels, delivered as static PDFs assembled by the administrator | No. Admin portals are built for the consultant, not the manager | Consultant-paced, days to weeks |
| Crystal | From $99 per month for 5 assessment participants | Team dashboard and playbooks; monthly participant caps are smaller than many real teams | Yes | Same day |
| TeamDynamics | $39 per person, one time | A team report and a manager report, generated once everyone finishes | Yes | Waits for the last respondent before anything renders |
| Free single DISC tests + a spreadsheet | Free | No. You get sixteen separate results and an evening of hand-built charts that expire at the first roster change | Yes, painfully | An evening, repeated every time |
| This page You are here | Free for the whole team, no card | A live map that renders from the second person onward and recomputes as each teammate finishes | Yes. One link, no signup, no facilitator required | About 6 minutes per person |
Competitor figures are public list prices and published product descriptions as of August 2026; they change, so confirm with each vendor.
The link you create above works forever and costs nothing. When you want more than one team, assessor-side reports on individuals, or the Big Five map with its outcome-linked research beside the DISC one, that is SMP Assess: the same engine, in a dashboard built for the person responsible for the team.
Each member of a team answers a short DISC questionnaire measuring four work styles: Dominance, Influence, Steadiness and Conscientiousness. A team version then combines the individual profiles into one picture: the mix of styles, the collective comfort zone, the pairs where friction is plausible, and working norms suited to that particular blend. Used well, it gives a team a shared, non-judgmental vocabulary for differences everyone had already noticed. It is a development tool: it informs conversations and it decides nothing about any person.
The map renders from two members and gets richer as people join: pace and focus spectra from two, a named team identity from three, faultline detection from four, up to fifteen members per team. Each person answers 40 questions in about 6 minutes on any phone or laptop. A team that starts after lunch reads its own map the same afternoon.
Most DISC questionnaires are forced-choice: you must pick which of four words is most and least like you. That format produces ipsative scores, which describe the balance of styles within one person and cannot be legitimately compared between people. A team map is nothing but comparison between people, which is the quiet contradiction at the heart of most team DISC reports. Our instrument uses independently rated statements instead, so the scores are normative and members genuinely sit on one common scale. We still show strength out of 100 rather than percentiles, because we will not present rankings we have not normed.
Honest answer: DISC is a useful shared language built on two real dimensions of workplace behaviour, pace and focus, and its styles echo established traits. What DISC is not is a predictor of job or team performance, and no DISC vendor has published evidence that it is. That is why every claim in the report is tied to the statistic that produced it, why the outcome-linked research lives in our Big Five team map, and why we say plainly what the map can and cannot tell you. One example of how scoring can mislead: a widely repeated vendor claim says only about 9% of people lead with Dominance. In our analysis of an open research dataset of roughly thirty thousand DISC responses (Open-Source Psychometrics Project), the D share is a scoring artifact: raw scoring produces a single-digit share, and scoring the same responses against the sample’s own distribution puts every style near a quarter. The instrument you choose changes the story a team is told, which is exactly why we show our working.
No. DISC describes style, not ability, and neither our instrument nor any DISC instrument has the criterion evidence that selection use demands. The report says this in its footer and we mean it: never use a style map to screen, rank or exclude anyone. If you are hiring, our structured hiring assessment is built for that job, with the stricter rules selection deserves.
The team map is a shared artifact: everyone with the team link sees the mix, the wheel and the reads, because a map of the team only helps if the team can look at it together. Each person also keeps their own full personal DISC report from the moment they finish. Invite people openly, tell them what will be visible, and read the map together rather than about each other. The link is unlisted and the report is never indexed by search engines.
The team map on this page is free for the whole team: no card, no per-seat fee, no facilitator. SMP Assess, the dashboard product it grows into, has a free tier and published pricing for teams that want assessor reports, multiple teams, and the Big Five map alongside DISC. You will not need a sales call to find out what anything costs.
Both, for different halves of the job. DISC is the better shared vocabulary: four memorable styles people actually use in conversation the next day. The Big Five is the better measurement: the published research linking team composition to outcomes is written in trait language, and our Big Five team map applies it. On the same rail you can run either, which is a choice no DISC vendor and no Big Five vendor offers on one link.
Create the team above, send one link, and read the map together this week. If it does not change a single conversation, it cost your team nothing.
Keep reading
References
Style is one input into how a team works: it informs, it never determines. Nothing on this page or in the report measures ability, predicts performance, or supports employment decisions.