ATOSS vs GFOS

ATOSS

Terminal, smartphone, tablet, PC and even the till are all named as capture paths, with group bookings for mobile crews and corrections said to be quickly possible and traceably documented. But I found no public information on offline capture, on any approval step for a correction, or on what a location-based booking actually stores and who may read an individual's day — questions a works council must have answered before co-determining such a system. Several paths, thin answers.

GFOS

Capture is documented across terminals, the GFOS app, and smartphones or tablets that can stand in as a shared terminal with multi-user login by employee ID and PIN or QR code, plus offline capture that stores locally during network outages and syncs when the server returns. Corrections run through a defined correction process rather than free editing, which I welcome. GPS recording must be explicitly activated before it is booked with the time data, but we found no public information on what the GPS record stores, who may read an individual's day, or an audit trail showing who changed what.

ATOSS

The pages claim lawful capture and EuGH-conforming documentation of working time, acknowledge the BAG confirmation of the ruling, and describe corrections as traceably documented and records as audit-ready. Rest periods and overtime thresholds appear only in the payroll specialists' context, and I found no public information on configurable break rules, on warnings for the daily maximum and the eleven-hour rest period, or on any retention period. For a record that must survive an inspection, that is more assurance than arithmetic.

GFOS

Collective agreements, works agreements and individual working-time models are stored in the wage type logic, night, Sunday and holiday premiums are assigned to wage types automatically, and retention under commercial law is stated with a yearly deletion review — real substance on the valuation side. We found no public information on break rules, warnings at the eight- and ten-hour daily maximum or the eleven-hour rest period, nor on tamper-evident entries with full change history, which is what an inspection turns on.

ATOSS

Absence requests run from submission through electronic approval to tracking, leave calendars are visible in real time, and a shift-exchange marketplace with replacements is evidenced — planning is even said to comply with local laws and union agreements, which my side of the table reads with approval. But I found no public information on automatic entitlement and carry-over, on sickness recording, or on public-holiday calendars per location.

GFOS

Absence and planning sit in one connected system: leave requests with approval workflows and entitlement monitoring, sickness differentiated into initial notification, follow-up notification and accident at work with certified retrieval of the electronic certificate of incapacity, and scheduling that draws on the attendance data, flags planning conflicts and offers a duty exchange platform with substitutes. We found no public information on public-holiday calendars per location, pro-rata entitlement or rest-period checks in the plan. I note plainly that illness-trend analytics and an AI answering absence questions from the records are features I would want tightly scoped in a works agreement before any rollout.

ATOSS

Working time can be booked to projects, orders and cost centres, including on the road at a customer site or on a construction site, which is more allocation than a single project field. I found no public information on rates, on a billable flag, on per-project reporting or any invoice-ready export.

GFOS

Recorded time books to projects, sub-projects, tasks, activities and locations, with a billable flag, target/actual comparisons and project-progress reports, automatic messages on deviations, and a standard interface that transfers evaluated project times onward for invoicing. We found no public information on rate cards per person, role or project, and that is the piece that turns a clean record into a computable invoice for a services firm.

ATOSS

A technology partnership with DATEV is named for specific products, data is said to transfer directly to the payroll system validated and payroll-ready, approval backlogs are escalated before payroll deadlines, and corrections after the close are explicitly handled. I found no public information on night, Sunday and holiday surcharges in the transfer, nor on a formal lock step before transmission.

GFOS

Certified interfaces to DATEV, PAISY, SAP, Navision, LOGA and Veda among more than thirty payroll systems are claimed, night, Sunday and holiday surcharges are calculated automatically from recorded times, absences synchronise downstream including cancellation and extension, and integrated retroactive accounting covers corrections after the close. We found no public information on an auditable approval and lock step before transmission or on scoped access for the tax adviser, which is what separates a good handoff from a controlled one.

ATOSS

The contracting entity is ATOSS Software SE in Munich with a German commercial register entry, an on-premises deployment is offered alongside the cloud, and a data processing agreement is linked in the footer. I found no public information on where the cloud data is hosted or on any subprocessor list — for a workforce record, that silence is not a basis for final approval.

GFOS

The contracting entity is solidly German — Essen address, Amtsgericht Essen register entry, German VAT number — and the website processor chain is published down to Google Ireland, CookieFirst in the Netherlands and HubSpot with servers in Germany and the USA. For the product itself we found no public information on the hosting region for time data, on product subprocessors, or on an on-premises option; and the US transfer to HubSpot rests on a GDPR exception clause for unsafe third countries rather than a named safeguard.

ATOSS

The captured pages name modules and invite a demo, but I found no public prices for any tier or module. A buyer cannot compute any part of the annual invoice from what is published.

GFOS

Package names Base, Professional and Enterprise are public and bundles exist, but we found no public information on per-user prices, terminal hardware, module pricing, billing period, minimum terms or VAT treatment. A buyer cannot compute the annual invoice for any headcount from the public pages; the tiers are named and every figure is a sales conversation.