Both OKRs and EOS Rocks help you set priorities and hold your team accountable to them. That’s where the similarity ends.
The question most people ask — which framework is better? — is not quite the right question. The better question is: which problem do you most need to solve right now?
OKRs and EOS Rocks solve different problems. OKRs are designed to answer what does success actually look like, and are we reaching for it ambitiously enough? Rocks are designed to answer will we actually finish the things we’ve identified as most important this quarter? These are related problems, but they are not the same problem — and choosing the right framework means being honest about which one is yours.
What Each Framework Is — in Brief
EOS Rocks and OKRs answer different questions. Rocks are 90-day, done-or-not-done commitments — three to seven per person or team, each with one owner — built to make sure you finish your most important work; a healthy quarter is about 80% of Rocks complete. OKRs pair a qualitative Objective with 2–5 measurable Key Results scored from 0 to 1.0, built to define what success looks like and whether you are reaching far enough. If your problem is finishing what you have already identified, start with Rocks. If it is defining and measuring the outcomes, start with OKRs.
If you’ve read OKRs for Canadian Small Businesses and EOS Rocks: A Practical Guide for Small Business Operators, you already know the mechanics. The short version:
EOS Rocks — from Gino Wickman’s Traction (2011) — are 90-day commitments with a binary done/not-done assessment. Three to seven per person or team per quarter. Each Rock has one owner and a clear done definition written in advance. Progress is reviewed weekly in the L10 meeting: on track or off track, nothing more. Healthy completion is 80% — not 100%, which would mean the Rocks weren’t ambitious enough.
OKRs — developed at Intel in the 1970s, popularised by John Doerr’s Measure What Matters (2018) — pair a qualitative Objective with 2–5 measurable Key Results, scored from 0 to 1.0 at end of cycle. Three types: committed (must reach 100%), aspirational (70% is a win), and learning (success is a clear decision, not a score). The framework forces you to define measurable outcomes rather than just completing activities.
How They Compare
| EOS Rocks | OKRs | |
|---|---|---|
| Origin | Gino Wickman, Traction (2011) | Andy Grove, Intel (1970s); popularised by John Doerr, Measure What Matters (2018) |
| Assessment | Binary — done or not done | Scored 0–1.0 per Key Result |
| Sub-measures | None — the Rock is the commitment | 2–5 Key Results per Objective |
| Types | All Rocks are equal | Committed / Aspirational / Learning |
| Healthy completion | 80% of Rocks per quarter | 100% committed; ~70% aspirational |
| Weekly review | On track or off track in L10 (5 minutes) | Brief progress check-in |
| Parking lot | Explicit in EOS methodology | Not formalised |
| Comes with | Full operating system — L10, scorecard, accountability chart | Standalone framework |
| Primary strength | Execution discipline | Outcome measurement and strategic alignment |
| Sweet spot | 10–200 people, execution-focused | 50–200+ people, alignment-complex |
The Same Priorities, Two Frameworks
The clearest way to see the difference is to take the same underlying priorities and express them in both frameworks side by side.
The three examples below are Northlight priorities — the same ones used in the individual guides for each framework. The intention behind each one does not change. What changes is what each framework asks you to define, track, and grade.
Priority 1: Deliver Reliably on Client Work
| EOS Rock | OKR | |
|---|---|---|
| Statement | Complete all active client deliverables on schedule and within agreed scope for Q3, with a structured mid-quarter check-in documented for each engagement. | Objective: Deliver reliably on every active client engagement this quarter. |
| Measures | None — done is done. | KR1: Complete all agreed deliverables by contracted deadlines — 100%. KR2: Conduct a structured mid-quarter check-in with each active client. KR3: Invoice within five business days of each deliverable milestone. |
| Type | No type designation. | Committed — must reach 100%. |
| Done means | All deliverables signed off; written check-in summary exists for each client. | All three Key Results at 100% by end of quarter. |
| If it slips | Off track in L10 → goes on Issues list. | Committed OKR miss → conversation about what failed and why. |
What this reveals: The Rock asks whether you finished. The OKR asks whether you finished — and proves it through measurable Key Results. Those KRs surface things the Rock doesn’t: invoicing within five days isn’t captured in “completed on schedule,” but it matters to the client relationship. Whether that level of precision adds value or creates overhead depends on your business.
Priority 2: Grow the Content Platform
| EOS Rock | OKR | |
|---|---|---|
| Statement | Publish six long-form posts on bynorthlight.ca and submit the site to five Canadian business resource directories. | Objective: Make bynorthlight.ca a go-to resource for Canadian founders navigating strategy and operations. |
| Measures | None — done is done. | KR1: Publish six posts each earning at least one backlink from an external source. KR2: Grow organic search traffic by 40% quarter-over-quarter. KR3: Receive 10 direct referrals to bynorthlight.ca from other Canadian business resources. |
| Type | No type designation. | Aspirational — 70% is a success. |
| Done means | Six posts live; five directory submissions confirmed. | Each Key Result scored independently. 70%+ overall is a strong quarter. |
| If it slips | Off track in L10 → goes on Issues list. | Grade reflects reality. 50% on an aspirational OKR is still information. |
What this reveals: You can complete the Rock — six posts published, five directories submitted — and still score 30% on the OKR if traffic didn’t move and no referrals came in. The Rock tells you whether you showed up. The OKR tells you whether showing up worked. For a content strategy where output is within your control but outcomes aren’t entirely, this distinction matters.
Priority 3: Test a New Workshop Offer
| EOS Rock | OKR | |
|---|---|---|
| Statement | Run the AI governance workshop pilot with two clients, collect structured feedback from each, and write a one-page go/no-go recommendation on formal development. | Objective: Determine whether a packaged AI governance workshop is worth developing for small business clients. |
| Measures | None — done is done. | KR1: Pilot with two clients by end of Q3, with structured feedback collected from each. KR2: Document findings on pricing, format, duration, and buyer motivation. KR3: Make a go/no-go decision on formal development by end of quarter. |
| Type | No type designation. | Learning — success is a clear decision, not a score. |
| Done means | Both pilots complete; feedback documented; written recommendation on file. | A clear decision exists by end of quarter, with documented reasoning. |
| If it slips | Off track in L10 → goes on Issues list. | No grade — the outcome is the decision itself. |
What this reveals: For a learning-oriented priority, the Rock and the Learning OKR converge on nearly the same thing. The meaningful difference is naming: OKRs make the distinction between “this is a learning cycle” and “this must succeed” explicit before the quarter begins. Rocks don’t make that distinction. If you have a team that benefits from being told “this one is exploratory, not a commitment,” the Learning OKR type does that work.
The exercise works for any priority — pick something important you’re carrying this quarter and write it both ways. The differences that surface will tell you which framework you actually need.
When to Use EOS Rocks
Choose Rocks when your primary problem is execution discipline — when the right priorities are already identified, but they keep dying mid-quarter.
- Priorities are crowded out by business-as-usual. If the important keeps losing to the urgent, the L10 accountability rhythm solves this in a way that’s hard to replicate with OKRs alone.
- Your team needs a simple shared language. Binary done/not-done is easy to explain, easy to review, and hard to game.
- You want a full operating system. Rocks don’t stand alone — they’re one component of EOS, which provides L10, the accountability chart, the scorecard, and the quarterly planning rhythm. If you want all of that, Rocks are the goal-setting layer of a broader system.
- You’re running a business with 10–150 people. EOS was designed for this range — a leadership team that can hold the whole business in view and review all Rocks in five minutes.
- You’re not yet confident writing measurable outcomes. Rocks are forgiving on this. The commitment to finish something is itself valuable, and the L10 review doesn’t require you to score Key Results.
When to Use OKRs
Choose OKRs when your primary problem is alignment and measurement — when the team isn’t sure what success looks like, or when different parts of the organisation are pulling in different directions.
- You need cross-team strategic alignment. OKRs make it possible to connect individual and team-level work to company-level goals in a visible, traceable way. Rocks don’t do this.
- You need to distinguish between what must happen and what you’re reaching for. The committed/aspirational/learning distinction is genuinely useful — it changes how people interpret underperformance and sets appropriate expectations before the quarter begins.
- You need to measure outcomes, not just completion. If publishing six posts is the output and traffic growth is the outcome, only OKRs surface whether the output actually moved the outcome.
- You’re scaling and alignment is the dominant problem. As organisations grow and strategy becomes more abstract, OKRs scale in a way that Rocks don’t.
- You have the capacity to write strong Key Results. The value of OKRs is in the Key Results. Vague Key Results — activities dressed up as outcomes — produce a weak OKR practice. This is the most common implementation failure and the thing worth being honest about before you start.
Can You Use Both?
Yes, and the combination can work well when the scope of each framework is clearly separated.
Two patterns that tend to work:
-
Rocks for quarterly execution, OKRs for annual strategic goals. Run Rocks each quarter as the execution discipline layer. Set company OKRs annually for strategic direction and measurable ambition that operates above the 90-day cycle.
-
OKRs for company-level alignment, Rocks for individual accountability. The leadership team holds company OKRs representing strategic goals. Individual contributors set Rocks representing their specific contribution to those goals each quarter. OKRs define the direction; Rocks define the execution.
The risk in combining frameworks is overhead and ambiguity. If people aren’t clear on which one actually drives their priorities, they’ll treat one as the real system and the other as paperwork. If you combine them, make the relationship explicit before you start — which one governs what, and how do they connect?
In practice, this combination tends to become relevant at around 50 people and above — where cross-functional complexity genuinely warrants the alignment work OKRs require, and execution volume genuinely warrants the accountability discipline Rocks provide. Below that threshold, one framework run well will almost always outperform two run in parallel.
Making the Decision
If you’re choosing between the two for the first time, start with the honest version of your problem:
- Your biggest challenge is knowing what to measure and whether strategy is working. → OKRs
- Your biggest challenge is things you’ve already identified as priorities not actually getting done. → Rocks
- You’re not sure. → Start with Rocks — that’s the recommendation from advisory practice, not a rule of either framework. The done/not-done structure is easier to implement, and the L10 cadence gives you an accountability mechanism on day one. You can add OKR thinking later as your planning practice matures.
Neither framework fixes unclear strategy, diffuse accountability, or a team that doesn’t trust each other. Both require conditions they can’t create — strategic clarity, organisational trust, clear ownership, willingness to say no. Building those conditions is usually the harder work, and often the more important one.
Both OKRs for Canadian Small Businesses and EOS Rocks: A Practical Guide for Small Business Operators walk through the implementation sequence in detail, with Northlight examples and printable worksheets for each.
The OKR Starter Worksheet and the Rocks Quarterly Planning Template are both available free — no email, no sign-up.