Same six-judge panel, same rubric — and the benches split by criterion. softgarden takes sovereignty 7.3 to 3.2 and applicant data governance 5.5 to 2.0, with six judges leaning softgarden on each, plus AI screening control 3.0 to 1.7 with five leans and one tie. d.vinci takes integrations and handover 2.8 to 1.7 with six leaning d.vinci, and job distribution 5.0 to 4.2 with five leaning d.vinci. Pricing transparency favors d.vinci at 5.2 to 4.5, with three leans d.vinci and three ties; candidate pipeline splits too: 3.7 to 3.3 for d.vinci, but two judges lean d.vinci, one softgarden, three tie. Weighted totals favor softgarden with five of six judges; employer branding sits level at 4.4 to 4.4. Both are DE-jurisdiction with EU-only data residency; d.vinci's ownership is founder-held and its subprocessor exposure US Cloud Act, softgarden's ownership unknown and subprocessor exposure EU-only.
Choose d.vinci if
You need integrations and handover — six judges lean d.vinci there, 2.8 to 1.7, the strongest lean of d.vinci's bench
Your team posts broadly and needs distribution reach — five judges lean d.vinci on job distribution, 5.0 to 4.2, with multiposting to over 500 job boards, Google for Jobs optimization and a career page the vendor calls "100% barrierefrei"
You want module prices you can read before a sales call — three judges lean d.vinci on pricing transparency, 5.2 to 4.5, with applicant management "ab 785 € pro Monat", career pages "ab 399 € pro Monat" and onboarding "ab 1020 € pro Monat"
Founder-held ownership is a requirement — d.vinci's sovereignty attributes list founder-held ownership, while softgarden's list ownership as unknown
Choose softgarden if
You need documented applicant-data governance — six judges lean softgarden, 5.5 to 2.0, on German data-centre hosting at named providers WIIT AG (formerly myLoc) and Equinix Germany GmbH in Frankfurt and Düsseldorf, a downloadable processing agreement and ISO 27001/27017/27018 certification
Sovereignty leads your shortlist — six judges lean softgarden, 7.3 to 3.2; its subprocessor exposure is listed as EU-only while d.vinci's is listed as US Cloud Act
AI screening control is a gate in your evaluation — five judges lean softgarden, 3.0 to 1.7 with one tie; the d.vinci verdict found no public information on what its career-page AI agent does, which provider runs it or whether it can be switched off
Your data protection officer or works council signs off on the purchase — their weighted totals are 4.6 to 2.8 and 4.1 to 2.5 for softgarden
Read this comparison as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The Works Council Advocate
Sits on the Betriebsrat, which co-determines selection guidelines and questionnaires. Asks what any ranking evaluates, whether it can be switched off, who sees which applicant, and whether an internal candidate's file leaks into their personnel record. No answer, no agreement.
d.vinci
softgarden
This judge's pick
Criterion by criterion
Applicant management & hiring workflow
d.vinci
Configurable workflows, roles and rights, and administration across companies and branches are stated, but we found no public information on structured scorecards, templated candidate communication, or any record of who changed a stage and when. A rejection that leaves no attributable trace is exactly what a works council cannot agree to.
softgarden
The public pages show an application overview with team communication, a dashboard with appointments, to-dos and recruiting KPIs, and a system history that records access attempts and changes to data records — that history is the one lever a works council can hold onto. Beyond it we found no public information on pipeline stages per job, structured scorecards, interview scheduling, or hiring-manager access limited to their own vacancies, so no decision is shown as documented and attributed rather than merely made.
Multiposting, career page & candidate experience
d.vinci
Multiposting to over 500 job boards, Google for Jobs optimisation, a stated "100% barrierefrei" career page and one-click translations are published. No German board is named, however, and we found no public information on per-channel cost or applicant reporting or on candidates seeing their own status and withdrawing themselves.
softgarden
Over 1,200 job boards plus social media and Google Ads, a career page in both packages, SEO-optimized ads, and conversion rates and entry channels evaluated per job advertisement — distribution here is at least measured, not only broadcast. Yet no German board is named on the captured pages — neither the Bundesagentur für Arbeit nor a major paid board appears — and we found no public information on Google for Jobs markup, mobile application without an account, or candidates viewing their own status and withdrawing themselves.
Retention, deletion & talent-pool consent
d.vinci
The privacy policy states a retention principle limited to purpose and statutory storage periods, but that is a legal principle, not product functionality. We found no public information on automatic deletion deadlines after rejection, talent-pool consent with expiry, or any log of who viewed or exported an applicant file — the employer carries this liability alone.
softgarden
Automated deletion of applicant data configurable by the responsible party to their operational requirements, a recommended six-month retention default, a four-week deadline for answering data-subject requests with a compliance address, and a system history logging access attempts and changing operations — the core of the employer's liability is genuinely stated. We found no public information on talent-pool consent with expiry, retention rules per country or entity, candidate self-service, or how deletion propagates to backups and to the boards the vacancy was posted to.
AI screening transparency & control
d.vinci
An integrated AI agent is marketed for the career pages with no statement of what it evaluates, where it runs, or whether it can be switched off, and we found no public information on a provider or an EU AI Act position. Nothing here would let a works council base an agreement on it.
softgarden
An AI screening assistant and candidate matching are sold under the slogan "transparent and ohne Blackbox", and the privacy pages state that applicant data in the applicant management system is not transferred to third countries. A slogan is not documentation a works council can base an agreement on: we found no public information on what the matching evaluates, whether each AI feature can be switched off per account, whether a rejection always rests on a human action, whether candidates are informed, or which provider runs the models.
HR handover, integrations & API
d.vinci
Interfaces for connecting various partners and a Microsoft Teams integration for video interviews are stated, but no partner is named and we found no public information on API documentation, SSO or e-signature. The path a hired candidate's data takes into the HR system is unverifiable from the captured pages.
softgarden
The journey continues into the vendor's own pre-boarding, onboarding and offboarding modules, but on the captured pages it ends there. We found no public information on an API, SSO, e-signature for contracts, or a named handover to any HR or payroll system common in DACH — so the question I always put, whether an internal applicant's file follows them into their personnel record, cannot be answered from public pages.
European sovereignty
d.vinci
A German contracting entity in Hamburg with register number and VAT ID is published, but we found no public information on where applicant data is hosted or which of the over 500 job boards receive CVs, and the AI agent's processing location is unstated. The subprocessors actually named on the privacy page concern web analytics, design and support, including providers in Australia and the USA.
softgarden
Hosting in German data centres on named providers (WIIT AG and Equinix Germany GmbH in Frankfurt am Main and Düsseldorf), a Berlin contracting entity with register entry and German VAT number, a processing agreement to download or sign digitally, published ISO and DEKRA certifications, and a statement that no third-country transfer of applicant data occurs — most of what co-determination needs is on the record. The support tool is flagged for US CLOUD Act exposure through its Irish entity, involving only business email addresses of support requesters with the vendor arguing it acts as a controller, and ownership is not confirmed on the captured pages — which keeps this short of the top.
Pricing transparency
d.vinci
Three module prices are public with the employee-count basis and stated unlimited users and postings, at "d.vinci Bewerbermanagement ab 785 € pro Monat" and "d.vinci Onboarding ab 1020 € pro Monat". Implementation workshops cost extra with no amount given, and we found no public information on job-board booking costs, the AI agent, the minimum term or VAT treatment.
softgarden
The entry package is public — "ab 199 € / Monat" plus VAT, at most five jobs included, unlimited users — while All-in-One carries only "Individuelle Preisgestaltung", individual pricing tailored to hiring volume. We found no public information on job-board posting costs, the heart of this vendor's media business, on prices for the AI or onboarding modules, or on the minimum term, so a Mittelstand buyer cannot compute the real annual invoice from public pages alone.
Sovereignty, side by side
Dimension
d.vinci
softgarden
Legal entity
Incorporated in DE
Incorporated in DE
Ownership
Founder-held
Not determined
Data residency
Not determined
EU only
Subprocessors
US CLOUD Act reach
Not determined
Facts, side by side
Only facts both products carry under the same definition — anything else would not be a fair row.