Absence Management
Calamari
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Calamari sp. z o.o. sp.k. · www.calamari.io
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
No written verdict for this product
The panel scored Calamari, but the summary our synthesizer wrote did not survive our own contradiction check — twice. Rather than print a paragraph we cannot stand behind, we print none. Every score, rationale and source below is unaffected; read them and draw the conclusion yourself.
The scores
Entitlements & German leave rules
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether the tool computes leave the way German and Austrian law and contracts do: entitlements per contract and working-time model, part-time proration, carry-over and expiry with the required notice, public holidays per federal state, half days and hourly leave, and special leave types.
0 — A fixed number of days per person typed in by hand; no carry-over, no proration and no public holidays.
3 — Annual entitlements and national public holidays, with carry-over as a manual adjustment and no statement on part-time or regional holidays.
5 — Entitlements per employee with automatic proration for joiners, leavers and part-time working days, public holidays per German federal state or Austrian region, half days, configurable carry-over with an expiry date, and custom leave types.
8 — Several working-time models per employee with changes over time recalculated, hourly leave, carry-over expiry with automatic notices to employees before leave lapses, special leave and parental leave types with their own rules, and entitlement changes logged.
10 — Leave law modelled and documented: entitlement rules per contract or collective agreement, statutory minimum and contractual leave kept apart where they expire differently, balances recalculated retroactively with an audit trail, and the rules a tool applies published in its help centre.
The Team Lead
Proration is genuinely modelled — three methods with worked examples and rounding to half days — and carry-over comes with limits and an expiry that deducts itself automatically, with seniority tiers like 20 versus 26 days and accrual rules tied to contract types. But we found no public information on public holidays per German federal state, on notices to employees before carried-over leave expires, or on keeping statutory and contractual entitlements apart where they lapse differently. 4 5
The Managing Director
The help centre shows real proration machinery — three methods with worked examples, rounding to half days, seniority and contract-type driven rules, carry-over with limits and automatic expiry — which is most of what a mid-level tool should do. I found no public information on public-holiday calendars per German federal state (the pages only cover whether holidays count inside a request's length) or on employees being notified before carried-over leave lapses, and both matter when I carry the liability for a wrong balance. Hourly absence types are configurable, so it sits at the middle level. 4 5
The Payroll Accountant
The leave-policy configuration is genuinely deep: entitlements restricted to contract types, seniority rules with the 20/26-day example, proration by days, full or partial months with rounding options, carry-over limits with automatic expiry, and hour-based accrual. But we found no public information on public holidays per German federal state or Austrian region, on half-day requests, or on special and parental leave types with their own rules, and nothing on keeping statutory and contractual leave apart where they expire differently. 4 5
The Data Protection Officer
The help centre documents proration with worked examples, seniority-based entitlement tiers, carry-over limits with automatic expiry deduction, hourly absence and accrual rules restricted to specific contract types — real contract modelling, not typed-in numbers. I found no public information on public holidays per German federal state or Austrian region, on special and parental leave types, or on automatic notices before carried-over leave lapses, which holds it below the higher marks. 4 5
The HR IT Integrator
Entitlements are genuinely modelled: proration runs automatically with three documented methods and rounding down to half days, carry-over can be capped and set to expire automatically, and rules can be driven by contract type, seniority and employment model with hourly leave supported. The help centre never shows public holidays resolved per German federal state or Austrian region, and I found no public information on special or parental leave types, automatic notices before carried-over leave lapses, or entitlement changes being recalculated over an employee's timeline. 4 5
The Skeptic
The help centre documents a real rule engine: accrual rules restricted to contract types, three proration methods with rounding choices, hour-based absences, and carry-over limits with an expiry that deducts automatically. The documented seniority example splits twenty versus twenty-six days by tenure, which is computing leave, not typing it in. We found no public information on public-holiday calendars per German federal state or Austrian region, on recalculating when working-time models change over time, or on keeping statutory and contractual leave apart where they expire differently. 4 5
Requests, approvals & team calendar
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The everyday flow: an employee requests leave on a phone, the right person approves, a substitute is named, and the team can plan around it — judged on configurable approval chains and on what colleagues are allowed to see.
0 — Leave requested by email or in a shared calendar; no approval step and no record of who approved.
3 — Requests with a single approver and a team calendar, but no substitutes, no blocking rules and every absence reason visible to everyone.
5 — Mobile requests and approvals, approvers per team or department, substitutes named on the request, a team calendar that shows absence without the reason, email or push notifications, and calendar sync.
8 — Multi-level approval chains, minimum staffing rules or blackout periods, delegation while the approver is away, configurable calendar visibility per role, Microsoft Teams or Slack integration, and every request, approval and cancellation logged.
10 — Approval logic that matches a real organisation: rules per location, team and leave type, conflicts checked against staffing and shift plans before approval, a complete history per request, and reporting on pending and overdue approvals.
The Team Lead
Requests on the phone with a named substitute are exactly my baseline, the substitute field can be made required per leave type, and request restrictions can either block or only warn — that combination prevents half of my clashes on its own. But we found no public information on approval chains or approvers per team, on a team calendar and what colleagues are allowed to see, on notifications or calendar sync, and nothing on minimum-staffing warnings before an approval goes through. 3 4
The Managing Director
Employees can request from web, mobile or Slack, name a substitute, and configurable restrictions can block or merely warn on request length, advance notice and frequency. But I found no public information on the approval side — approvers per team, multi-level chains, delegation — nor on a team calendar, notifications, calendar sync, or which colleagues may see an absence reason. Substitutes and blocking rules lift it past the basic single-approver level; the unevidenced approval and visibility machinery keeps it below the next. 3 4
The Payroll Accountant
Requests come in via web, mobile or Slack with a named substitute and configurable reason, comment and attachment fields, plus real blocking rules — minimum length, advance notice, maximum days per week, leave only after another type is exhausted. We found no public information on approval chains for time off, on the team calendar and what colleagues see, or on notifications and calendar sync; the custom approval flows shown sit with time tracking, not leave. 2 3 4
The Data Protection Officer
Employees request from web, mobile or Slack, can name a substitute, and the reason field can be required, hidden or disabled per absence type, with length and timing rules that can block or warn. I found no public information on approval chains, approvers per team, delegation, the team calendar, or which roles may see an absence — and colleague visibility is the question I care most about. 3 4 2
The HR IT Integrator
Requests arrive from web, mobile and Slack with a substitute picked on the request, per-type configurable fields, and a restriction engine that blocks or warns on lengths, notice periods and past-dated requests. I found no public information on approver chains per team or department, multi-level approval, the team calendar and what colleagues may see, or notifications and calendar sync — the calendar and approval wiring is the first thing I would have looked for. 3 4
The Skeptic
Requests flow from web, mobile and Slack with a substitute field and restriction rules that can block or merely warn — real planning logic a team can lean on. We found no public information on the approval step itself: who approves, approval chains, or delegation while the approver is away. The only approval flow the pages name sits in the time-tracking module, and we found no public information on a team calendar, notifications or calendar sync. 2 3 4
Sick leave, eAU & continued pay
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Sick notifications and the German electronic certificate of incapacity: whether the tool retrieves the eAU from the health insurer itself or through a named payroll system, how sick days are counted towards the six-week continued-pay and BEM thresholds, and how child-sick days and certificates from private insurance are handled.
0 — Sickness recorded as another leave type with no word on the eAU, certificates or thresholds.
3 — A sick-leave type with a document upload, and "eAU" mentioned without saying who retrieves it or how.
5 — Sick notification by the employee in the app, the eAU retrieval process documented — by the tool itself or via a named payroll system — with the retrieval status visible to HR, and child-sick days as a separate type.
8 — eAU retrieval from the statutory health insurers documented end to end with the certified software named, retrieval results written back to the absence, sick days counted towards the six-week continued-pay limit per illness, BEM thresholds flagged to HR only, and paper certificates for privately insured employees handled.
10 — Sick leave handled as the regulated process it is: eAU retrieval automated with error and follow-up handling, continued-pay and sickness-benefit transitions tracked, BEM invitation workflow supported, reasons and documents restricted to named roles, and the whole process documented in the help centre.
The Team Lead
The captured pages cover only annual-leave configuration. We found no public information on sick notifications by employees, eAU retrieval by the tool or a payroll system, counting sick days towards the six-week continued-pay limit, or child-sick days. 4
The Managing Director
Across the homepage, pricing and leave-policy pages I found no public information on the eAU, certificates, child-sick days, or how sick days count towards the six-week continued-pay threshold; sickness could at most be a self-configured absence type with a predefined reason. As the person who would otherwise phone every health insurer, that silence decides the score. 1 4
The Payroll Accountant
Sickness appears to be just another configurable absence type with an optional attachments field, and we found no public information on the eAU, on retrieval from health insurers or a payroll system, on counting sick days towards the six-week continued-pay limit, or on child-sick days. For my payroll run that is unusable — nothing tells me who fetches the certificate or how the sick day reaches payroll. 4
The Data Protection Officer
I found no public information on sick notifications, the electronic certificate of incapacity, who retrieves it, child-sick days, or any counting towards the six-week continued-pay and BEM thresholds. Sickness is not described beyond the general absence-type configuration. 1 4
The HR IT Integrator
None of the captured pages mentions sickness handling: I found no public information on the eAU, on certificates or on how sick days would count towards the six-week continued-pay limit or BEM, so this capability rates as not evidenced. 3 4
The Skeptic
The captured pages are silent on sickness: no mention of the eAU, certificates, child-sick days or continued pay, and attachments appear only as a generic field on any request. We found no public information on who retrieves a certificate or how sick days would count towards the six-week continued-pay rule. 4
Payroll handover, time tracking & API
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Getting absences into the payroll run with the right codes and keeping balances consistent with time tracking: exports or integrations for the payroll systems German companies use, time-account interaction, and an API.
0 — No export beyond a screen list; absences are retyped into payroll.
3 — A CSV or Excel export of absences per month, with no named payroll system and no API.
5 — A documented export or integration for DATEV (LODAS or Lohn und Gehalt) or another named German payroll system, absence types mapped to payroll codes, and a documented API.
8 — Several named payroll integrations, absence and overtime balances shared with time tracking, configurable payroll codes per leave type, monthly closing that locks past periods, webhooks, and an API with published limits.
10 — Payroll handover that closes the month: absences, sick days and eAU results delivered to payroll in its own format with corrections flagged, a period lock with an audit trail, a versioned API with a deprecation policy, and the full absence history exportable at contract end.
The Team Lead
A time and attendance module sits next to time off in the same product, so absences and worked time plausibly share a home. But we found no public information on absence exports, on any named German payroll system such as DATEV, on payroll codes, or on an API. 1 2
The Managing Director
I found no public information on payroll exports, DATEV or any other named payroll system, or a documented API. Time tracking is sold as a module alongside time off, but nothing shows absence and overtime balances actually shared between them. Until handover is evidenced, someone in my office retypes every absence into the payroll run. 1 2
The Payroll Accountant
We found no public information on any export or integration to a payroll system — DATEV or otherwise — no API, and no monthly closing that locks past periods. Time & attendance and reporting exist as modules alongside time off, but nothing shows absences leaving the tool mapped to payroll codes. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
A time and attendance module with timesheets is listed alongside absence, but I found no public information on any absence export, a named German payroll system, payroll code mapping, monthly closing or an API. Absences appear to stay inside the tool on the captured evidence. 2
The HR IT Integrator
This is my make-or-break criterion and it comes back empty: I found no public information on an export or integration for DATEV or any other named German payroll system, on a documented API or webhooks, or on absence and overtime balances shared between the Time Off and Time & Attendance modules. The only integration facts published are the single sign-on providers (Okta, Azure, Google, OneLogin, Auth0), which is identity, not payroll. 1 2
The Skeptic
We found no public information on a payroll export, a named payroll system such as DATEV, or an API; the pricing page names SAML providers and support options, nothing that moves absences into a payroll run. A Time & Attendance module is sold alongside Time Off, but no captured page shows their balances interacting or any monthly closing. 1 2
Health data, access & works council
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What the tool does with data that is health data in law: who can see a sickness reason or certificate, how long absence records are kept, whether access is logged, and whether the vendor documents what a works agreement on absence recording needs.
0 — Nothing stated about who sees sick data or how long absences are kept.
3 — Roles for employees, managers and admins, but sickness reasons and documents visible to managers by default, and no retention setting.
5 — Sick-leave reasons and certificates restricted to HR by configurable permissions, colleagues see only "absent", retention or deletion of absence records configurable, and a DPA available.
8 — Field-level permissions per leave type, access to health-related records logged, retention rules per record type with automatic deletion, employees able to see their own records, and documentation aimed at works councils or a works agreement.
10 — Health data governed and evidenced: Art. 9 GDPR processing explained per feature, deletion runs logged and reportable, audit logs exportable, no analytics or AI features run on sickness data without explicit configuration, and the vendor publishing a template or checklist for the works agreement.
The Team Lead
A data processing agreement is listed among the custom-plan items, which is a start. Beyond that we found no public information on who may see a sickness reason or certificate, on retention or deletion of absence records, on access logging, or on documentation aimed at a works agreement. 2 4
The Managing Director
A DPA is offered publicly and the reason field on a request can be hidden, which is the extent of what the captured pages show. I found no public information on role permissions over sickness reasons and documents, retention or deletion settings, access logging, or anything aimed at a works council — nothing I could take into a works agreement negotiation. 2 4
The Payroll Accountant
A DPA is offered, reason, comment and attachment fields can be hidden per absence type, and there is a general changes audit in the core HR module. We found no public information on retention or deletion of absence records, on access logging for sickness data, or on anything aimed at a works council or works agreement. 2 4
The Data Protection Officer
A data processing agreement appears on the custom plan, a general changes-audit feature is listed, and the request reason can be hidden per absence type. I found no public information on who may see a reason or certificate, retention or deletion of absence records, access logging of health-related records, or documentation aimed at a works council or works agreement. 2 4
The HR IT Integrator
The only visibility control evidenced is the per-absence-type option to hide the reason field, alongside a DPA offered on the pricing page and a general changes audit in Core HR. I found no public information on retention or deletion of absence records, on access to health-related records being logged, or on any documentation aimed at a works council or works agreement. 2 4
The Skeptic
A DPA is offered and the reason field can be set to hidden per absence type, alongside a generic changes-audit feature. We found no public information on who may see a sickness reason or certificate, on retention or deletion of absence records, or on anything aimed at a works council or works agreement. 2 4
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where absence and sickness data lives, who the contracting entity is, and who the subprocessors are — including email, push-notification and support providers. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline.
0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated, and subprocessors unnamed.
3 — EU hosting offered as an option while the contracting entity is non-EU, or the subprocessor list is absent.
5 — EU hosting as standard and an EU contracting entity, but parts of the chain — email, push notifications, analytics or support — are non-EU without an explained safeguard.
8 — EU hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, subprocessor list published with locations, and a DPA that covers sickness data as special-category processing.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: vendor, entity, hosting and every subprocessor European, and certification published.
The Team Lead
The vendor is a Polish company, Warsaw-registered, which is the one European fact on the table. Its own captured pages say nothing about where absence data is hosted, the contracting entity, or a single subprocessor including email, push or support providers — we found no public information on any of it, and the capture caveat confirms as much. 1
The Managing Director
The vendor is a Polish company, and that is where the confirmed facts end: I found no public information on where absence and sickness data is hosted, on the subprocessor list — including who delivers the emails and push notifications — or on certification. A European vendor at least clears the first hurdle, but the rest of the chain is unauditable from public pages. 1 2
The Payroll Accountant
The vendor is a Polish company, but the captured pages say nothing about where absence and sickness data is hosted or who the subprocessors are — data residency, ownership and the subprocessor chain are unconfirmed on the vendor's own pages. The DPA offer on the pricing page is the only documented safeguard we can see. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
The provenance data names a Polish company in Warsaw as the vendor, but the captured pages confirm nothing about where absence and sickness data is hosted, the contracting entity, or a single subprocessor — including who sends the push notification. Without hosting and a subprocessor list I cannot take the chain on trust. 1 2
The HR IT Integrator
The contracting entity is Polish per the independent sourcing, which rules out a non-EU profile, and a DPA is offered on the pricing page. But the vendor's own captured pages give nothing on where absence data is hosted or on a single subprocessor for email, push notifications or support, so the chain is unverified end to end and no special-category safeguard is evidenced. 1 2
The Skeptic
We found no public information on hosting location or on any subprocessor — email, push or support — and data residency is flagged as unconfirmed on the vendor's own captured pages. The Polish entity appears in provenance data rather than on anything the vendor publishes, so a buyer has nothing verifiable to check. 1 2
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the real annual cost from public pages alone: price per employee or per user, which features (eAU, payroll export, time tracking) sit in which tier, minimum users and the minimum term.
0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.
3 — A starting price exists, but the pricing basis or which features it covers is unstated — the invoice is unknowable.
5 — Tier prices public with the pricing basis given, but at least one commonly needed piece (eAU, payroll export, time tracking, extra admins) is unpriced or "on request".
8 — Every tier priced publicly with its basis, add-on prices listed, minimum users, minimum term and VAT treatment given.
10 — Complete price computability: the annual invoice derivable for a given headcount and feature set, with every add-on, setup fee and overage published.
The Team Lead
A free 14-day trial without a credit card is public and the custom plan's contents are listed item by item. But we found no public prices at all — no price per employee, no tier prices, no minimum users, no minimum term — so I cannot compute what twelve people across two shifts would cost me a year. 1 2
The Managing Director
The pricing page publishes a free 14-day trial with no credit card and a custom plan offering contracts and a DPA, but I found no public price figures at all — no per-employee rate, no tier boundaries between time off, time tracking and the other modules, no minimums or term. I cannot compute any invoice from these pages, so every purchase starts as a sales conversation. 2 1
The Payroll Accountant
The pricing page shows a 14-day trial without a credit card and lists what a custom plan includes — contracts, DPA, monthly invoicing, training — but we found no public information on prices: no per-employee figure, no tier breakdown, no minimum users or term, and no statement of which features cost extra. As far as the pages show, every invoice is a sales conversation. 2
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pricing page shows a free fourteen-day trial without credit card and a custom plan with negotiated contracts, adjusted payment methods and extra training. I found no public per-employee or per-user prices, tier boundaries, minimum users or minimum term, so a buyer cannot compute the annual invoice from public pages. 2
The HR IT Integrator
The pricing page publishes a "Free 14-days trial" with "No credit card required" and a custom plan listing contracts, a DPA, dedicated support and training sessions, but not one figure. I found no public price per employee or per tier, no pricing basis, and no public information on which features the plan covers, so a buyer cannot compute an annual cost from the public pages. 2
The Skeptic
The only public cost information is a free 14-day trial with no credit card required. Beyond that we found no public information on per-employee prices, the pricing basis, which features sit in which plan, minimum users or the minimum term; the plan description lists custom contracts, support and training without figures. A buyer cannot compute an annual invoice from these pages. 2
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 1 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Subprocessors. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- We could not confirm any compliance information on the vendor’s own pages as captured, so this page shows none rather than a statement we cannot stand behind. Know more? Tell us
- 44 product facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 20 pricing facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 9 integrations facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 5 support facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 4 hosting facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 legal facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
- The panel’s written verdict is withheld: our own re-read found claims in it that the evidence does not carry, and a second synthesis did not fix them. The scores and the material below are unaffected. Know more? Tell us
Sources (5)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.calamari.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page www.calamari.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Leave management www.calamari.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Entitlements & German leave rules — found from sitemap help.calamari.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Entitlements & German leave rules — found from sitemap help.calamari.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →