Absence Management
Factorial
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Factorial HR S.L. · factorialhr.de
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Link to this page
Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds.
The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where
that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.
Factorial at a glance
- Vendor
- Factorial HR S.L.
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Factorial 1/5, the mean of 6 judges. Factorial HR S.L. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 3 Oct 2026 to 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Factorial HR S.L. of Barcelona sells absence management on factorialhr.de, scoring strongest on payroll handover, 3 to 4, and sovereignty, 5 to 7. The vendor's site carries integration pages for DATEV and a DATEV LODAS API, and the published subprocessor list names hosting on AWS in Frankfurt, Azure in Germany and Sweden, email via SendGrid in Ireland and analytics on Google Cloud in the EU — judges weighed this detail against data residency and the contracting entity being unconfirmed on the captured pages. Weakest are pricing transparency, 0 to 1: a pricing page exists, yet no price figure, tier or pricing basis is public. Sick leave and the eAU scored 0 to 1, and no captured page addresses sickness. Leave policies spread 0 to 2 and requests and approvals 0 to 2 as judges weighed the German leave and entitlements pages against no confirmed facts on entitlement arithmetic or approval flows. Absence data protection spread 2 to 4: some judges credited the published data processing agreement, single sign-on and audit logging; others found silence on who sees a sickness reason or certificate decisive.
Speaks for it
- The vendor's site publishes integration pages naming DATEV and a DATEV LODAS API for German payroll handover
- The published subprocessor list names hosting on AWS in Frankfurt and Azure in Germany and Sweden, email via SendGrid in Ireland, and analytics on Google Cloud in the EU
- A platform data processing agreement, single sign-on, least-privilege access and audit logging are published
- A trust center offers request-based access to private audit reports
- Security scan grades dated 27/03/2026 are published: ImmuniWeb A, MDN Observatory B+, Qualys SSL Labs A+
Held against it
- We found no public information on how entitlements, part-time proration, carry-over or public holidays per federal state are computed
- Only downloadable templates were captured for requests and approvals, with no public information on approval chains, substitutes or what colleagues may see
- We found no public information on sick notifications, eAU retrieval, six-week continued-pay counting or child sick days
- No price figure, tier, pricing basis, minimum users or term could be confirmed from the captured pricing page
- We found no public information on who may see a sickness reason or certificate, on retention of absence records, or on works-council documentation
Best for
- You already run DATEV payroll and want a vendor that publicly names DATEV and DATEV LODAS API integrations
- Your procurement requires a published subprocessor list with named locations before shortlisting
- You want a published platform data processing agreement with single sign-on and audit logging in place from the start
Avoid if
- You need the regulated sick-leave process — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You must compute an annual cost before a sales conversation; the captured pricing page yields no price figure, tier or pricing basis
- You rely on documented approval chains, substitutes and calendar-visibility settings; the only captured material on requests is downloadable templates
- You need German entitlement arithmetic — part-time proration, federal-state holidays, carry-over with expiry — confirmed in the product
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Entitlements & German leave rules | 0.5 of 5 |
| Requests, approvals & team calendar | 0.5 of 5 |
| Sick leave, eAU & continued pay | 0 of 5 |
| Payroll handover, time tracking & API | 2 of 5 |
| Health data, access & works council | 2 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 3.5 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 0.5 of 5 |
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
The captured leave-management pages give no confirmed facts on entitlements, part-time proration, carry-over and expiry, or public holidays by federal state — we found no public information on any of the arithmetic that decides who still has days left. For approving twelve people across two shifts, that arithmetic is exactly what I need before signing anything off. 5 6 5
The Managing Director
The vendor sells leave management, but the captured pages show nothing about how entitlements are computed: we found no public information on part-time proration, public holidays per federal state, carry-over with an expiry date, or half days. Running two sites across two federal states without an HR department, that is precisely the evidence I would need before trusting a balance. 5 6 5
The Payroll Accountant
The German site carries dedicated leave-management pages, but we found no public information on how entitlements are actually computed — nothing on part-time proration, public holidays per federal state, carry-over with an expiry date, half days or special leave types. For payroll that gap is decisive: I cannot tell from these captures whether balances arrive pre-calculated per contract and working-time model. 5 6
The Data Protection Officer
The vendor's German pages on leave management and entitlements were captured, but I found no public information on how entitlements are computed: nothing on part-time proration, carry-over with expiry and notice, public holidays per federal state, half days, hourly leave or special leave types. A page dedicated to entitlements and German leave rules exists, which keeps this just above the floor. 5 6 5
The HR IT Integrator
We found no public information on entitlement calculation, part-time proration, carry-over with expiry, public holidays per German federal state, or half-day and special leave types — the leave pages yield no confirmed facts on any of it. Without that I cannot tell whether balances would reconcile with payroll or the time-tracking side at all. 5 6 5
The Skeptic
Dedicated German leave-management pages were captured, yet not one confirmed fact says how entitlements, part-time proration, carry-over and its expiry, or federal-state public holidays are handled. With no public information on any German or Austrian leave rule being computed rather than typed in, this sits at the floor. 5 6 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
This is the flow I live in, and the captured material confirms nothing about it: no facts on mobile requests and approvals, approver assignment, named substitutes, or minimum-staffing warnings before approval — the calendar and holiday-request pages are downloadable templates rather than evidence of an in-app approval chain. Generic audit logging in the security material is the only hint that any action is recorded. 7 8 4
The Managing Director
The only captured material on the request flow is downloadable templates — a holiday-request form and an interactive HR calendar — rather than a described product flow. We found no public information on approval chains, approvers per team, substitutes, or what colleagues may see of an absence. 7 8
The Payroll Accountant
We found no public information on the request and approval flow itself — no approver configuration, no substitutes, no statement on what colleagues may see in a team calendar. The only captured pages on the topic are downloadable templates (a leave-application form and an interactive HR calendar), and templates tell me nothing about approvals in the product. 7 8
The Data Protection Officer
Beyond template downloads for a holiday request and an interactive HR calendar, I found no public information on the request flow: no evidence of mobile approvals, approver hierarchies per team, named substitutes, or what colleagues may see of an absence reason. For a tool that will carry sickness absences, silence on calendar visibility is the gap that decided this. 7 8 5
The HR IT Integrator
All captured material on this theme is downloadable templates — an interactive HR calendar and a holiday request form — and we found no public information on approval chains, substitutes, notifications or what colleagues are allowed to see. There is nothing describing a request flow inside the product that I could wire calendar sync or approvals onto. 7 8
The Skeptic
The only material captured for this flow is a pair of downloadable templates — a vacation-request form and an interactive HR calendar — which is paperwork, not product evidence. We found no public information on approval chains, substitutes, mobile approvals, blocking rules or what colleagues may see of an absence. 7 8
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
We found no public information on sick notifications, the eAU or who retrieves it, counting towards the six-week continued-pay limit, BEM, or child-sick days; sickness does not appear as a topic anywhere in the captured pages. 1 4 12
The Managing Director
Nothing captured mentions sick notifications, the electronic certificate of incapacity, child-sick days or the six-week continued-pay limit; the leave-management pages show no separate sick-leave handling either. We found no public information on any of it, and for a regulated process this silence is the lowest case. 5 6
The Payroll Accountant
Nothing in the captured material says a word about the regulated sick-leave process: we found no public information on eAU retrieval — by the tool or via a named payroll system — on certificates being attached to the sick day, or on counting sick days towards the six-week continued-pay limit per illness. Until someone shows me the eAU result written back to the absence, that work stays on my desk regardless of the tool. 4 5
The Data Protection Officer
I found no public information on sick notification by employees, eAU retrieval from health insurers or via a payroll system, sick days counted towards the six-week continued-pay limit, or child-sick days. Sickness is health data in law, and nothing captured tells me who would see a reason or certificate or how the regulated process is handled. 5 6 5
The HR IT Integrator
We found no public information on sick notifications, eAU retrieval by the tool or via a named payroll system, continued-pay counting or child sick days; the captured leave pages never mention the eAU. For my payroll wiring that leaves the entire sickness-to-payroll data path undocumented. 5 6 5
The Skeptic
Nothing in the captured homepage or leave pages mentions sick notifications, the eAU, certificates, six-week continued pay or BEM even once, and the evidence contains no page addressing sickness at all. By the absence standard here that is the bottom score; who retrieves the certificate is entirely unevidenced. 1 1 5
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
The vendor's own site carries integration pages naming DATEV and a DATEV LODAS API, which is a real pointer for German payroll; but no confirmed facts describe the export, mapping absence types to payroll codes, period locking, or API documentation, so I cannot judge the handover itself. Time-account interaction is likewise unevidenced. 9 10
The Managing Director
Public integration pages exist for DATEV and for a DATEV LODAS API, so a named German payroll handover with an interface is marketed. Beyond those page titles we found no public information on mapping absence types to payroll codes, on time-account interaction, or on API limits, so the handover's real shape is unproven. 9 10
The Payroll Accountant
The integration directory shows public pages for DATEV and DATEV LODAS API, which is more than a nameless monthly export. But we found no public information on mapping absence types to payroll codes, on locking past months once they are paid, on time-account interaction or on API documentation and limits — the three things I check before trusting a handover. 9 10
The Data Protection Officer
The vendor's site carries dedicated pages for a DATEV integration and a DATEV LODAS API integration, which evidences a named German payroll path and suggests an API. But I found no public information on mapping absence types to payroll codes, interaction with time accounts, period locking or published API limits, so it falls short of the documented handover level. 9 10
The HR IT Integrator
The vendor's own site carries integration pages for DATEV and a DATEV LODAS API, the one concrete pointer to a maintained German payroll connector, but we found no public information on payroll-code mapping, API documentation, webhooks, monthly period locks, or how absence and overtime balances agree with time tracking. I credit the named connector pages and stop there, because nothing captured about their contents is confirmed. 9 10
The Skeptic
The vendor's app directory carries pages named for DATEV and a DATEV LODAS API integration, so a named German payroll system and the word API are at least public. But we found no public information on what the handover actually delivers, whether absence types map to payroll codes, on time-account interaction, webhooks or any published API limits, so nothing beyond the integration's existence can be credited. 9 10
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
The security pages do publish least-privilege access control, single sign-on and audit logging, plus a data processing agreement and data-subject-rights documentation — a real baseline. But we found no public information on who may see a sickness reason or certificate, on retention or deletion settings for absence records, or on anything aimed at a works council. 4 11 4
The Managing Director
The security pages evidence single sign-on, least-privilege access and audit logging, and a data processing agreement is available — a genuine start. But we found no public information on who may see a sickness reason or certificate, how long absence records are kept, or anything aimed at a works council, and for health data that silence decides the score. 4 11 12 4
The Payroll Accountant
A platform data processing agreement is published and the security pages list least-privilege access control, logging and audit logging, which is a start. We found no public information on retention of absence records, on restricting sickness reasons and certificates to named roles, or on documentation aimed at a works agreement; and the Azure OpenAI subprocessor entry describes AI content generation and analytics without any absence-specific safeguard stated. 4 4
The Data Protection Officer
A data processing agreement, a privacy policy, least-privilege access with logging, audit logging and employee privacy training are published, and the subprocessor list openly discloses Azure OpenAI for AI content generation. But I found no public information on who may see a sickness reason or certificate, on retention or deletion of absence records, on field-level permissions, or on any documentation aimed at a works council — for a tool recording sick days, that silence is decisive. 4 4 11 12
The HR IT Integrator
The trust pages publish single sign-on, least privilege and logging, and a platform data processing agreement is available, which is generic access-control hygiene. But we found no public information on who may see sickness reasons or certificates, on retention or deletion of absence records, or on any documentation aimed at a works council or works agreement. 4 11 12
The Skeptic
What is confirmed is generic posture — single sign-on, least privilege, logging, a platform data processing agreement and data-subject-rights documents. We found no public information on who may see a sickness reason or certificate, retention or deletion of absence records, field-level permissions, or anything written for a works council, so the health-data specifics a German buyer needs are unevidenced. 4 11 12 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 published subprocessor list is unusually concrete — hosting with AWS in Frankfurt and Azure in Germany and Sweden, email via SendGrid in Ireland, signatures via Signaturit in Ireland, all EU — and the vendor is Factorial HR S.L. of Barcelona. What holds it back: the independently sourced attributes mark data residency and the contracting entity as unconfirmed on the captured pages, and we found no public information on whether the data processing agreement treats sickness data as special-category processing. 1 4 4
The Managing Director
For a Spanish vendor, the published subprocessor list is unusually complete and wholly European: hosting on Amazon Web Services in Frankfurt and on Azure in Germany and Sweden, email via SendGrid in Ireland, analytics on Google Cloud in the EU. What holds it back is that the captured pages do not confirm the contracting entity or a stated data-residency guarantee, and there is no statement that the processing agreement covers sickness data as special-category processing. 3 4 4
The Payroll Accountant
The published subprocessor list is genuinely detailed — AWS Frankfurt for hosting, Azure Germany and Sweden, SendGrid and Signaturit in Ireland, every entry with purpose and location — and the vendor is Barcelona-based. But the captured pages leave the contracting entity and data residency formally unconfirmed, and we found no public information on whether the data processing agreement treats sickness data as special-category processing, or on certification. 3 4 4
The Data Protection Officer
A subprocessor list is published with locations: hosting on AWS in Frankfurt and Azure in Germany and Sweden, email via SendGrid in Ireland, analytics on Google Cloud in the EU, with EU standard contractual clauses named where transfers occur. But the captured pages leave the contracting entity and data residency unconfirmed, I found no public information on push-notification or support providers, and none on published certification. 4 4 3
The HR IT Integrator
The published subprocessor chain is European throughout — AWS web hosting in Frankfurt, Azure hosting in Germany and Sweden, SendGrid email in Ireland, Confluent and Shopify in Germany — and the vendor is presented as a Spanish company with the privacy policy naming the entity. It falls short of the mark above because nothing shows the data processing agreement covering sickness data as special-category processing, and the captured pages leave the contracting entity and data residency formally unconfirmed. 1 3 4
The Skeptic
The security page publishes a subprocessor chain that is European throughout — hosting on AWS in Frankfurt under the Luxembourg entity and Azure in Germany and Sweden, SendGrid in Ireland, Google Cloud and Confluent in the EU — which is the one strong, checkable element here. The independent sovereignty review marks the contracting entity, ownership and data residency as unconfirmed on the captured pages, and nothing shows the data processing agreement addressing sickness data as special-category processing or any certification published. 3 4 4
Pricing transparency
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
We found no public pricing information in the captured material: no price per employee, no tier contents, no minimum users or term — even the pricing page capture yields no confirmed price, so an annual cost cannot be computed from public pages. 1 2
The Managing Director
A pricing page exists, yet no price, pricing basis, tier boundaries, minimum users or minimum terms were captured from it. We found no public information that would let me compute the annual invoice for forty people — as a buyer I am back in a sales conversation. 2
The Payroll Accountant
A pricing page was captured, yet no price figure was confirmed from it: we found no public information on tier prices, the per-employee pricing basis, minimum users, the minimum term, or what eAU and a DATEV export cost. I could not begin to estimate an annual invoice for a given headcount. 2
The Data Protection Officer
A pricing page was captured, yet I found no public information on the price per employee, the pricing basis, which tier contains eAU retrieval, payroll export or time tracking, minimum users, minimum term or VAT treatment. No figure I could rely on appears in the captured content, so the invoice is not computable from what is public. 2 1
The HR IT Integrator
We found no public information on prices, pricing basis, which features sit in which tier, minimum users or contract term; nothing captured from the pricing page states a figure. A buyer cannot compute any annual cost for an absence deployment from what is published here. 2
The Skeptic
A public pricing page was captured, yet no price figure, tier, pricing basis, minimum users, term or VAT treatment survives as a confirmed fact. A buyer cannot compute any annual cost from what is public here, and which tier carries eAU or payroll export is unknowable. 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 ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Factorial
Is Factorial European?
Yes. whats-best.ai classifies Factorial as EU-Made.
Where does Factorial store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Factorial have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Factorial?
As of 15 Oct 2026, the panel rates Kenjo (3/5), flair (2.5/5) and HRlab (2.5/5) highest among the other 16 Absence Management products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is Kenjo (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Factorial alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 3 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 — Legal entity, Data residency, 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 pricing 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
- 104 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
- 30 subprocessors 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
- 24 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
- 23 compliance 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 data 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 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
- 4 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
- 3 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
- 3 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (12)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage factorialhr.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 3 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page factorialhr.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy — names the entity factorialhr.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Security / trust page factorialhr.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 3 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Leave management factorialhr.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 3 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Entitlements & German leave rules — found from sitemap factorialhr.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Requests, approvals & team calendar — found from sitemap factorialhr.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Requests, approvals & team calendar — found from sitemap factorialhr.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Payroll handover, time tracking & API — found from sitemap factorialhr.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Payroll handover, time tracking & API — found from sitemap factorialhr.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Health data, access & works council — found from sitemap factorialhr.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Health data, access & works council — found from sitemap factorialhr.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →