Absence Management
flair
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by flair.hr GmbH · flair.hr
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.
flair at a glance
- Vendor
- flair.hr GmbH
- 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
- Starting price
- “Ab 2,50 € pro Mitarbeitendem und Monat.” (vendor’s words) source, captured 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates flair 2.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. flair, an absence management suite from flair.hr GmbH of Munich built natively on Salesforce, drew a consistent picture from the judges: strong everyday absence operations, thin public proof on data protection, sovereignty and price. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 1 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
flair, an absence management suite from flair.hr GmbH of Munich built natively on Salesforce, drew a consistent picture from the judges: strong everyday absence operations, thin public proof on data protection, sovereignty and price. Requests and approvals scored highest at 7-8, on multi-step chains routed by department, location or legal entity, quorum and parallel modes, Slack and mobile approval, and manager transfers kept in an audit history. Leave policies, sick leave and eAU, and payroll handover cluster at 6-7, resting on working-day and FTE proration with Germany, Austria and Switzerland settings, carry-over offsets up to four years, eAU retrieval from the statutory health insurer through the DATEV connection, and handover to LODAS or Lohn und Gehalt. Absence data protection clusters at 4 — granular permissions, but we found no public information on retention, access logging for health data, a data-processing agreement or works-council material. Sovereignty and pricing transparency sit lowest: we found no public information on hosting, the contracting entity, subprocessors or any price figure, with the pages offering a free, non-binding demo. No notable disagreement was recorded.
Speaks for it
- Multi-step approval chains with first-response, quorum, all-required or parallel modes, routed by department, position, location, entity or a custom field, handled in Slack and on iOS and Android apps.
- eAU retrieval runs end to end through the DATEV connection — auto-send with a configurable delay, insurer answers written back in plain words, invalid fields flagged.
- Accrual prorates by working days per week or FTE share with Germany, Austria and Switzerland settings, and carry-over offsets run to four years.
- DATEV handover names both target systems, LODAS and Lohn und Gehalt, with accountant authorization, employee and payroll sync actions, payslip retrieval and lockable payroll runs.
- Access control uses named Salesforce permission sets and visibility scopes by department, location or entity, with manager-hierarchy sharing that excludes absences and documents.
Held against it
- We found no public information on hosting location, the contracting entity's jurisdiction or any subprocessor, while the product runs natively on Salesforce — a US platform layer for absence and sickness data.
- The pricing pages name modules and optional add-ons, but we found no public price on them — no per-employee figure, no pricing basis, no minimum users, no term; the offer is a free, non-binding demo.
- We found no public information on retention or deletion settings for absence records, on logging access to health-related records, on a data-processing agreement, or on material for a works council.
- We found no public information on counting sick days towards the six-week continued-pay limit, on BEM thresholds, or on child-sick days as a separate type.
- We found no public information on mapping absence types to payroll codes, on webhooks, or on a documented API with published limits — a developer portal is only mentioned among support resources.
Best for
- You run German payroll through DATEV (LODAS or Lohn und Gehalt) and want the eAU retrieved from the statutory health insurer and recorded against each absence.
- Your managers approve leave in Slack and on their phones and need multi-step chains routed by department, location or legal entity.
- You already govern HR access through Salesforce permission sets and want absence data under the same visibility scopes.
- You pay staff in Germany and Switzerland and want a second named payroll connection, MSBC (SwissSalary), alongside DATEV.
Avoid if
- You must document where absence and sickness data is hosted and which subprocessors touch it before signing — the platform layer is US (Salesforce) and we found no public information on hosting or subprocessors.
- You need to put retention rules, access logging and a data-processing agreement in front of a works council — the captured privacy statements cover website and applicant data only.
- You must compute an annual invoice from published prices before shortlisting — the pricing pages show modules and add-ons, and we found no public price on them.
- Your leave setup needs special and parental leave types, statutory and contractual entitlement kept apart where they expire differently, or public holidays per German federal state rather than per location.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Entitlements & German leave rules | 3.5 of 5 |
| Requests, approvals & team calendar | 3.5 of 5 |
| Sick leave, eAU & continued pay | 3.5 of 5 |
| Payroll handover, time tracking & API | 3.5 of 5 |
| Health data, access & works council | 2 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1 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 accrual documentation is genuinely deep: proration by working days or FTE share with Germany, Austria and Switzerland named as the by-days case, carry-over with regulated expiry and offsets up to four years, half days, and hourly absence categories with per-day start and end times. We found no public information on automatic notices to employees before carry-over lapses, on special or parental leave types with their own rules, or on public holidays handled per federal state rather than per location. 6 8
The Managing Director
The help centre documents what I am personally liable for: proration by working days per week or FTE share, half days (morning, lunch, evening), hourly categories with different times per day, carry-over with expiry methods including regulated carry-over, and public holidays maintained per location with Germany, Austria and Switzerland settings called out. I found no public information on automatic notices to employees before carried-over leave lapses, or on special and parental leave types with their own rules. 6 8 3 2
The Payroll Accountant
Proration is properly modelled — by working days per week or FTE share, with the Germany/Austria/Switzerland configuration documented — plus half days morning, lunch or evening, hourly categories, carry-over with expiry options including regulated carry-over, and allowance growth by age or years of service. We found no public information on special leave or parental leave types, on automatic notices before carried-over leave lapses, or on statutory minimum and contractual entitlement being kept apart where they expire differently. 6 8 3
The Data Protection Officer
Accrual policies are documented in real depth: proration by days and by full-time-equivalent share with working-day proration called the common setting for Germany, Austria and Switzerland, monthly or anniversary grants, carry-over with expiry options up to four years out, half days, hourly absence categories and custom absence types, plus public holidays handled per location. We found no public information on automatic notices before carry-over lapses, on statutory versus contractual leave being kept apart where they expire differently, or on special and parental leave types with their own rules. 6 8 3
The HR IT Integrator
The accrual documentation covers the mechanics German payroll asks about: proration by working days per week or FTE percentage for part-timers, yearly/monthly/anniversary accrual, regulated carry-over with expiry offsets up to four years, hourly categories and morning/lunch/evening half days, with DACH proration settings called out explicitly. We found no public information on automatic notices before carried-over leave lapses, on special and parental leave types with their own rules, or on keeping statutory minimum and contractual entitlement apart where they expire differently. 6 8 3
The Skeptic
The accrual engine is real, not typed in: proration by days, months or full months, workload proration by working days per week or FTE percentage, rounding down to half values, carry-over with regulated expiry and offsets of up to four further years, and half days with Morning, Lunch and Evening options. But I found no public information on automatic notices before carried-over leave expires, on special or parental leave types, or on public holidays per German federal state — the closest is a troubleshooting topic about public holidays per location — which keeps it a cut above the middle tier and short of modelled leave law. 6 8 2
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 and approvals on the phone are real — iOS and Android apps, one-click approval, Slack and email notifications, and multi-step chains with all-approve, quorum or parallel review routed by department, location, entity or custom field, with manager transfers kept in an audit history. Overlapping absences display in red, which is the clash warning I run on, but we found no public information on naming a substitute on the request, on minimum-staffing or blackout rules, or on a team calendar showing absence without the reason. 3 7 8 7
The Managing Director
This is a real framework, not a to-do list: multi-step chains with first-response, all-approver or quorum modes, routing by department, location, entity or a custom field, approvals in Slack and on the phone, overlap detection, and a manager change that hands over pending requests with the transfer kept in an audit history. I found no public information on minimum-staffing or blackout rules, on delegation while the approver is away, or on whether colleagues see an absence without its reason. 7 7 8 3
The Payroll Accountant
Multi-step approval chains with all-required, first-response, quorum or parallel steps, routed by department, location or legal entity, with a mid-flight manager change transferred to the new manager and recorded in the audit history; requests run through the Employee Hub, the iOS and Android apps and Slack, and overlapping absences show in red. We found no public information on minimum-staffing or blackout rules, on calendar sync, or on reporting of pending and overdue approvals. 7 7 8 3
The Data Protection Officer
Approval policies support multiple steps with quorum, parallel or first-response rules, routed by department, position, location, entity or a custom field, and requests run from the mobile app and Slack, with managers able to record a sick report on an employee's behalf and manager changes transferring pending requests into a recorded approval path. We found no public information on minimum staffing rules or blackout periods, and the pages show transfer on manager change rather than delegation while the approver is away. 7 7 8 3
The HR IT Integrator
The approval framework is genuinely configurable: multi-step chains routed by department, location or legal entity, quorum and parallel-approver modes, Slack and mobile approvals with one click, and manager transfers recorded in an audit history, on top of a team calendar with overlap detection. We found no public information on minimum-staffing or blackout checks against shift plans, on named substitutes, or on reporting for pending and overdue approvals. 7 7 8 3
The Skeptic
Multi-step policies routed by department, position, location or legal entity, approval types including quorum and all-must-approve, Slack approvals, mobile apps for iOS and Android, overlap warnings in red, and an audit history of approval assignments — the everyday flow is genuinely built. I found no public information on minimum-staffing or blackout rules, on what colleagues see of an absence reason in the team calendar, or on reporting over pending and overdue approvals, so it stays below the top band. 7 8 7
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 eAU process is documented end to end: flair sends the request through DATEV's hr:eau connection, can auto-send once a sick absence is recorded with a configurable delay, writes the insurer's plain-word answer and the incapacity and hospitalisation dates back onto the absence, and shows a status card with feedback errors and follow-up handling. We found no public information on counting sick days towards the six-week continued-pay limit, on flags to HR when BEM becomes due, on child-sick days as a separate type, or on paper certificates for privately insured employees. 8 9 9
The Managing Director
The eAU is documented end to end: requests go out through the DATEV integration, can be sent automatically once an absence is recorded with a configurable delay, and the insurer's answer lands on the absence record in plain words (incapacity for work, hospitalisation, report not existing) with errors and invalid fields flagged — exactly the process that avoids calls to every health insurer. I found no public information on counting sick days towards the six-week continued-pay limit, BEM thresholds, child-sick days as a separate type, or paper certificates for privately insured employees. 9 9 10 8
The Payroll Accountant
The eAU retrieval is documented end to end: configured on the DATEV payroll integration with the HR eAU connection status shown on the absence record, automatic sending after a configurable delay, insurer answers in plain words written back to the absence with incapacity and hospitalisation dates, and the employer's own incapacity start date held side by side for comparison. What I need for the payroll run is missing: we found no public information on sick days being counted towards the six-week continued-pay limit per illness, on BEM steps, on child-sick days as their own type, or on paper certificates for privately insured employees. 9 9 8
The Data Protection Officer
The eAU process is documented end to end through the DATEV integration with its HR eAU connection named, auto-send once an absence is recorded with a configurable delay, the insurer's answer written back onto the absence, and plain-word responses covering hospitalisation through to the recorded date of diagnosis. We found no public information on counting sick days towards the six-week continued-pay limit, on BEM thresholds being flagged, on child sick days as a separate type, or on paper certificates for privately insured employees. 9 9 8
The HR IT Integrator
The eAU path is documented end to end through the DATEV connection: flair sends the request to the statutory health insurer, auto-sending with a configurable delay, writes the insurer's answer back onto the absence with plain-word response codes, flagged errors and a status card showing the hr:eau connection. We found no public information on counting sick days towards the six-week continued-pay limit per illness, on BEM support, or on child-sick days as a separate type. 9 9 8
The Skeptic
The eAU is not a photo upload: the help centre documents retrieval from the statutory health insurer through the DATEV integration's HR eAU connection, automatic sends after a configurable delay, a full taxonomy of insurer responses, error feedback with invalid fields flagged, and the employer's own incapacity start date kept beside the insurer's period for comparison. I found no public information on counting sick days towards the six-week continued-pay limit per illness, on BEM thresholds, on child-sick days, or on paper certificates from privately insured employees beyond a generic document upload capped at 4 MB. 9 9 8
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
DATEV is the strong centre — target systems LODAS and Lohn und Gehalt, consultant and client numbers, an accountant authorisation link, employee and payroll sync actions, payslip downloads — with MSBC for Switzerland named as well, and approved absences automatically adjust target working hours in time tracking while payroll runs can be locked. We found no public information on webhooks, on published API limits, or on mapping each leave type to payroll codes. 3 10 11 13 10
The Managing Director
DATEV is taken seriously — target system LODAS or Lohn und Gehalt, consultant and client numbers, accountant authorisation, payslip retrieval, and explicit sync actions after an address, IBAN or salary changes — alongside a second named integration (MSBC/SwissSalary), approved absences automatically adjusting time-tracking targets, and payroll runs that can be locked. I found no public information on mapping absence types to payroll codes, on webhooks, or on a documented API with published limits; a developer portal is mentioned, but nothing in these pages documents one. 10 10 11 3 13
The Payroll Accountant
The DATEV handover is genuinely documented — target system LODAS or Lohn und Gehalt, consultant and client numbers, accountant authorization, employee and payroll data syncs, and payslip retrieval — alongside SwissSalary for Switzerland, payroll runs per pay period, and a locked payroll run whose time entries are normally closed once it is completed, which is the period lock I want. We found no public information on mapping absence types to payroll codes, on a documented API with published limits or webhooks, or on corrections being flagged to payroll. 10 10 11 13 3
The Data Protection Officer
The DATEV integration is documented for LODAS and Lohn und Gehalt with accountant authorisation, employee and payroll data syncs, file retrieval into employee documents and a second named payroll connection for Switzerland, and locked payroll runs appear behind a custom permission; approved absences also adjust target working hours in time tracking. We found no public information on published API limits, webhooks, or how absence types map to payroll codes, so the monthly handover is only partly evidenced. 10 10 11 13 3
The HR IT Integrator
DATEV handover is properly documented rather than a CSV — target system LODAS or Lohn und Gehalt, accountant authorization, employee and payroll sync actions, payslip retrieval, eAU over the same connector, and payroll runs that can be locked — while approved absences automatically adjust target working hours in time tracking and per-hours-worked accrual recalculates on timesheet approval, so balances agree on both sides. A developer portal is listed among support resources, but we found no public information on a documented API with published limits, on webhooks, or on mapping absence types to payroll codes. 10 10 11 3 13
The Skeptic
DATEV is named with both target systems, LODAS and Lohn und Gehalt, set up with consultant and client numbers, accountant authorisation links that work once and expire after a week, explicit sync actions after employee or pay data changes, and file downloads matched to the payroll run; SwissSalary appears as a second named system and approved absences automatically adjust target working hours in time tracking. I found no public information on mapping absence types to payroll codes, on webhooks or on published API limits beyond a developer portal being mentioned, and a period lock is only visible sideways, as a custom permission for adding deductions to a locked payroll run. 10 10 11 3 13
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
There is a serious permissions model: named permission sets per role, visibility scopes by department, location or entity, sharing rules that keep absences out of manager-hierarchy access, certificate visibility modes, and HR able to override visibility per record. We found no public information on retention or deletion of absence records, on access logging for health data, on a data processing agreement, or on documentation aimed at works councils. 8 13 7
The Managing Director
Access control is more granular than most: Salesforce permission sets per role, visibility scopes by department, location or entity, documents with an HR+Manager+Employee visibility option, and manager-hierarchy sharing that explicitly excludes absences, salaries and documents. I found no public information on retention or deletion settings for absence and sickness records, on logging who viewed a sick certificate, on a data-processing agreement, or on anything written for a works council; the privacy policy covers applicant and website data only. 13 7 8 4
The Payroll Accountant
Access control is real: permission sets per HR role, visibility scopes by department, location or entity, sharing defaults that keep absences away from managers further up the reporting chain, and an HR override of visibility on a single record. We found no public information on retention or deletion settings for absence records, on logging of access to sickness reasons and certificates, on a data processing agreement covering health data, or on any material aimed at a works council. 13 8 4
The Data Protection Officer
There is genuine access machinery: permission sets and visibility scopes by department, location and entity, absence-category visibility that HR can override record by record, and a server-enforced guard on logging in as an employee. But on everything that governs health data we found no public information: no retention or deletion setting for absence and sickness records, no data processing agreement, no logging of access to health-related records and no works-council documentation, while the eAU answer with its date of diagnosis is recorded on the absence with no stated viewer restriction; the privacy statements captured cover only website and applicant data. 13 8 7 9 4
The HR IT Integrator
Access control is the strong part: Salesforce permission sets per role, visibility scopes by department, location or entity, and document visibility inherited per absence category that HR can override record by record. We found no public information on retention settings for absence records, on logged access to health-related records, or on works-agreement or DPA material; the published retention figures cover applicant data and website logfiles only. 13 8 12 4
The Skeptic
There is a real permission architecture: named permission sets granting view or modify per object, visibility scopes by department, location or entity, document and certificate visibility levels named as HR, manager and employee, and manager-hierarchy sharing that explicitly excludes absences and documents — and the default policies route self-uploaded certificates to the manager, so what a manager sees is a configuration choice rather than a documented restriction to HR. I found no public information on retention or deletion settings for absence records, on logging access to sickness reasons, or on any documentation aimed at a works council, which holds this in the middle. 13 7 8
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 captured pages present a Munich vendor running on Salesforce, which makes the platform layer US, and beyond that I found no public information on hosting location, on the contracting entity's jurisdiction being confirmed on the vendor's own pages, or on any subprocessor list covering email, push notifications and support. A mention of regional adaptation options is not a hosting statement. 1 5
The Managing Director
The product is built natively on Salesforce, so the platform layer that would hold my absence and sickness data sits with a US provider, and I found no public information on the contracting entity, where data is hosted, or a single named subprocessor. For records that include diagnosis dates, that is not something I can sign off on from these pages. 1 5
The Payroll Accountant
The imprint places the company in Munich, but the captured pages do not confirm the contracting entity, and all HR data sits on Salesforce — a US platform layer — with residency described only as regional adaptation options. We found no public information on hosting guarantees or on a subprocessor list, so the chain behind absence and sickness data cannot be assessed. 5 1 1
The Data Protection Officer
On the contracting entity confirmed on the vendor's own pages, on where absence and sickness data is hosted, and on the subprocessor list including email, push and support providers, we found no public information. The product is built on Salesforce, so the platform layer is US, and regional adaptation appears only as a marketing phrase, which leaves me unable to say where a single sick day actually rests. 1 5 4
The HR IT Integrator
The captured pages tell me the product runs natively on Salesforce — a US platform layer for absence and sickness data — and offer only marketing phrases about regional adaptation and flexible data-privacy compliance. We found no public information on hosting location, contracting entity, subcontractors with locations, or certification, so the sovereignty question for special-category data stays unanswered. 1 5
The Skeptic
The captured pages give no confirmation of the contracting entity's jurisdiction and no data-residency statement — the homepage offers 'Optionen zur regionalen Anpassung', which is marketing, not hosting — and I found no public information on subprocessors, including the email, push and support chain, while the whole product runs natively on Salesforce, a US platform layer. Until vendor, entity, hosting and every subprocessor are published, this stays at the bottom of the scale. 1 5 1
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
The captured pricing page names the modules and add-ons but carries no figures at all, so I cannot compute an annual invoice for my twelve people from public pages. Everything routes to a free, non-binding demo, which is a sales conversation rather than a price. 2 3 2
The Managing Director
The pricing page shows modules and optional add-ons (advanced recruiting, qualified electronic signature, ticket system) and a free demo, but I found no public information on any price figure, the pricing basis, minimum users or a minimum term. I cannot begin to compute what this would cost my forty people across two sites. 2 2 3
The Payroll Accountant
The pricing page names the modules and marks the recruiting, qualified e-signature, ticket-system and time-tracking pieces as optional add-ons, but we found no public price for any of them — no per-employee rate and no tier figures — so the annual invoice is not computable and everything is routed through a free, non-binding demo. 2 2 3
The Data Protection Officer
The pricing page names the modules and marks time tracking, HR administration and recruiting as optional add-ons alongside qualified e-signature and a ticket system, so the composition of the offer is visible. We found no public prices at all — no price per employee, no pricing basis, no minimum users, no term and no VAT treatment — and the offered path is a free, non-binding demo, so no invoice is computable from these pages. 2 2 3
The HR IT Integrator
The pricing page names the modules and optional add-ons — e-signature, ticket system, advanced recruiting, time tracking, payroll — but we found no public prices on it: no per-employee figure, no pricing basis, no minimum users and no term. A buyer cannot compute an annual invoice from what is published; the only price-adjacent fact stated is a free, non-binding demo. 2 2
The Skeptic
The captured pricing pages name the modules and mark time tracking, advanced recruiting, the ticket system and qualified electronic signature as optional add-ons, and admin monitoring as a free integration — but we found no price figure on them: no per-employee rate, no tier cost, no minimum users, term or VAT treatment, and the offer on the page is a non-binding demo. A buyer cannot compute any invoice from what is public; the add-on labelling alone earns a point. 2 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 | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about flair
Is flair European?
Yes. whats-best.ai classifies flair as EU-Made.
Where does flair store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does flair have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to flair?
As of 15 Oct 2026, the panel rates Kenjo (3/5), HRlab (2.5/5) and Urlaubsverwaltung (2/5) highest among the other 16 Absence Management products evaluated. 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: flair alternatives.
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, Legal entity. 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.
- 16 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
- 5 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
- 3 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
- 2 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 compliance fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 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 (13)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage flair.hr Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page flair.hr Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Absence management flair.hr Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Privacy policy flair.hr Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Legal notice flair.hr Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Entitlements & German leave rules — found from sitemap kb.flair.hr Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Requests, approvals & team calendar — found from sitemap kb.flair.hr Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Requests, approvals & team calendar — found from sitemap kb.flair.hr Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Sick leave, eAU & continued pay — found from sitemap kb.flair.hr Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Payroll handover, time tracking & API — found from sitemap kb.flair.hr Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Payroll handover, time tracking & API — found from sitemap kb.flair.hr Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Health data, access & works council — found from sitemap kb.flair.hr Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Health data, access & works council — found from sitemap kb.flair.hr Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →