ATOSS vs GFOS

ATOSS

Terminal, smartphone, tablet, PC and even POS capture are all named, group bookings for mobile crews exist, and corrections are said to be traceably documented — a wide net. What no page says is what happens when the network is gone: offline capture and sync are never mentioned, nor GPS or geofenced check-in with stated limits. Correction approval and bulk handling are also not described; only that corrections are quickly possible and documented.

GFOS

The Terminal App pages show a designed offline state — bookings stored locally during network outages and synced when the server returns — plus shared-device multi-user mode with PIN or QR login, and GPS recording the vendor states must be explicitly activated. Capture paths multiply across the GFOS app, a smartphone or tablet turned into a terminal, and stationary terminals referenced with QR-code clocking, while project times carry a subsequent correction process. We found no public information on bulk correction or an audit trail attributing who changed which booking.

ATOSS

"Erfüllung aller EuGH Anforderungen" is asserted in one line, and the vendor candidly notes the BAG has confirmed the EU ruling while German law has not caught up — but no page shows the feature that makes the claim true. Rest period requirements and overtime limits appear once, in a description of what payroll specialists apply, and time evaluation runs by defined parameters. We found no public information on break rules, warnings on the daily maximum or the 11-hour rest period, retention of records, or an export built for an inspection.

GFOS

For a German vendor whose whole pitch is wage types and collective-agreement logic, we found no public information on the recording duty, break rules, rest periods or daily maximums; the closest is a healthcare claim of complying with working time regulations. Retention figures on the privacy page concern website and accounting data, and we found no public information on retention of the time record itself, change history, or an export built for an inspection. Overtime valuation, time accounts and working-time models are real infrastructure, but the ArbZG mechanics are unevidenced.

ATOSS

Absence requests run through electronic workflows with employee self-service, leave calendars show in real time, and scheduling handles replacements, an integrated shift-exchange board, and staffing-level analysis — with a claim that plans comply with local laws and union agreements, though no page names the check that performs this. We found no public information on automatic entitlement calculation, carry-over, sickness recording, per-location holiday calendars, or qualification and rest checks before publication. Planning breadth is real; the entitlement mechanics behind it are not shown.

GFOS

Entitlement monitoring with up to nine vacation accounts and configurable remaining-leave capping, differentiated sickness cases with eAU and EEL handling, substitution, and a duty-exchange platform sit beside conflict warnings, qualification-matched shift suggestions and a planning book — planning and recording are visibly one connected system. We found no public information on per-location public-holiday calendars, pro-rata entitlement for part-timers, or rest-period checks before a roster is published, which is precisely the compliance-adjacent half of rostering.

ATOSS

Times can be booked to orders and projects and directly to cost centres, even from a customer site or construction site — allocation exists. Beyond that the captured pages show nothing: no billable flag, no rates, no per-project reporting, no budgets, no invoice-ready export, and the published module list contains no project or billing entry. We found no public information on rates or any path from recorded time to an invoice.

GFOS

Working times book to projects, sub-projects, tasks and locations with a billable flag, per-project reports, deviation monitoring, cost-centre aggregation and a defined transfer of evaluated times to another system for invoicing. We found no public information on rate cards per person, role or project, or on budget tracking with warnings — the two pieces that turn booked time into a priced invoice without re-entry.

ATOSS

A DATEV technology partnership is named for two specific products, data is said to transfer directly to the payroll system, and the payroll flow shows validation before transfer, approval monitoring with escalation before payroll deadlines, and corrections after initial processing — retro handling that most vendors never document. Night, Sunday and holiday surcharges are not named, only generic premiums, and time accounts and mid-month changes go unmentioned. This is the most concretely evidenced capability the vendor publishes.

GFOS

Certified, named interfaces to DATEV, PAISY, SAP, LOGA and VEDA among over thirty payroll connections, automatic night, Sunday and holiday premiums assigned to wage types, absence synchronisation on cancellation or extension, retroactive accounting and click-through test payrolls make this the most thoroughly evidenced capability across these pages. We found no public information on an approval or lock step before the monthly transmission, or on scoped access for the tax adviser.

ATOSS

The contracting entity is ATOSS Software SE of Munich with a German register entry and VAT ID, a DPA is linked in the footer, and cloud or on-premises deployment is offered — the on-premises option is real. But we found no public information on hosting region or data residency, and no subprocessor list anywhere; the chain is documented only down to the front door. The German entity alone does not tell a buyer where the time data sleeps.

GFOS

The contracting entity is German — GFOS mbH in Essen, registered at the Essen court with a German VAT number — and the privacy policy names its website processors, including HubSpot with data stored in Germany and the USA under an Art. 49 derogation. We found no public information on where the workforce data itself is hosted, on a data-centre provider, or on the product's own subprocessors; "Made in Germany" and ISO 27001 certification do not state a hosting region.

ATOSS

No price appears anywhere in the captured material: no per-user figure, no tiers, no billing period, no minimum term, no VAT treatment, and no price for the terminals named among the capture channels. The only published step toward buying is "Schedule a demo now." For an enterprise vendor this may be convention, but a buyer cannot compute any part of the annual invoice from these pages.

GFOS

Tier names — Base, Professional, Enterprise — and bundle language appear on the product pages, but we found no public prices at all: no per-user figure, no billing period, no hardware price for the terminals the product references, no minimum seat count, no VAT treatment. A buyer can learn that tiers exist, not what any of them costs, so nothing about the annual invoice can be computed from what is published.