Factorial vs HiBob

Factorial

A document-management offering and a digital-personnel-file page exist in the captures, which is the floor of a personnel file. Beyond the titles, we found no public information on structured document types, org structure, custom fields, or any dated change history — and whether contract changes are versioned rather than overwritten is the first question I would ask.

HiBob

The employee database stores contracts, IDs and tax forms on the profile, handles e-signature and document management, and updates org charts automatically — a real personnel file, not a contact list. But I found no public information on effective-dated change history, field-level permissions, retention per document type or an intact export, and those are exactly the questions that decide who can read what in a file my council has to clear.

Factorial

Dedicated DATEV pages appear in the captures, so a named payroll path is implied. We found no public information on the export format, variable pay, absences, mid-month joiners and leavers, or any pre-payroll check, so the month closing cleanly into payroll is not something these pages evidence.

HiBob

The captured pages document native US and UK payroll in detail — HMRC-recognised, synced tax codes and student loans, monthly to bi-weekly cycles — plus a Payroll Hub exchanging data with third-party providers by API in near real time, with bank and tax details passed straight through from onboarding. But the connected providers are not named, and we found no public information on a German path such as DATEV or Lohn und Gehalt, no defined export format for it, no pre-payroll check and no access for the tax adviser, so our own month-end is not evidenced.

Factorial

A vacation-management page appears, so request handling is implied. We found no public information on automatic entitlement, carry-over or sickness recording — and nothing at all on working-time recording, which is the legal duty the BAG ruling created; as captured, this cannot carry that obligation.

HiBob

Working-time capture exists with multiple clock-ins per day, flexible tracking options and custom policies for global teams, time off runs through approvals, and absences are said to be reflected correctly in payroll. But retroactive edits are offered as a feature with no public information on tamper-evidence or a read trail, and nothing on the German recording duty after the BAG ruling, break and rest rules, automatic entitlement, carry-over or sickness recording — as documented this does not pass a works-council review.

Factorial

Both applicant management and an onboarding/offboarding offering appear in the captures, so both halves of the join path exist. We found no public information on structured stages, applicant retention and deletion deadlines, or whether the hired candidate flows into the employee record without re-entry.

HiBob

Onboarding is the strong half: pre-boarding starts the moment the offer is signed, one team-member record is created then, with e-signatures, document collection with automatic filing, IT equipment requests, policy-acknowledgement tracking and a handover into payroll and benefits without re-entry. We found no public information on applicant tracking itself — no careers page, structured stages or rejection handling — and none on applicant retention or deletion, which is the part a Betriebsrat reads first.

Factorial

The security page confirms a Data Processing Agreement exists and lists logging, but only in the context of the vendor's own internal controls. We found no public information on retention periods, configurable role separation, a customer-readable audit trail of who accessed whose file, or whether the AI features named on that page can be switched off — for a works council decision under co-determination law, that silence is decisive.

HiBob

We found no published signable data-processing agreement on the captured pages, retention is stated only as "as long as it is reasonably necessary", and the privacy policy explicitly does not cover the employees whose data this system holds. People analytics advertises attrition-risk indicators and AI that answers questions over the workforce data, with no documented audit log of who read what, no retention periods, no executed deletion and no switch-off documented beyond a toggle for AI auto-populated fields — that is not a basis for a co-determination negotiation.

Factorial

The vendor is Barcelona-based, which is a start, but the captured pages name AWS and Azure as infrastructure with no hosting region stated, and we found no public information confirming the contracting entity or any subprocessor list. For an HR system holding our employees' data, that is an open question, not an answer a data-protection officer can file.

HiBob

The privacy policy states personal data is maintained, processed and stored in the US, EU, UK, Australia, Canada and Israel, and the US subsidiary leans on the EU-US Data Privacy Framework with standard contractual clauses as the safeguard. We found no published subprocessor list, no named data-centre provider, and the contracting entity is not confirmed on the captured pages — for a German rollout that is documentation we could not accept as it stands.

Factorial

A pricing page appears in the captures, but no figure could be confirmed from it — no per-employee rate, billing period, or module price for payroll, time or recruiting. An HR lead cannot compute an annual invoice from what is captured here.

HiBob

A pricing page and a free demo exist, but the captured pricing pages show no figures at all — no per-employee price, billing period, minimum term or module price — and the onboarding page itself says the cost varies by features, number of users and subscription model. Marketing claims of "Return $2.55 for every $1 spent" and savings of "$15K-$30K" are not prices; an HR lead cannot compute an annual invoice from any of this.