Absence Management
Kenjo
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Kenjo GmbH · www.kenjo.io
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.
Kenjo at a glance
- Vendor
- Kenjo 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
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Kenjo 3/5, the mean of 6 judges. Kenjo is an HR suite for SME and deskless workforces from Kenjo GmbH, Berlin, and the strong scores cluster on the daily mechanics: requests and approvals at 7-8, sick leave and eAU at 7, payroll handover at 6-7 and leave policies at 5-7. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 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
Kenjo is an HR suite for SME and deskless workforces from Kenjo GmbH, Berlin, and the strong scores cluster on the daily mechanics: requests and approvals at 7-8, sick leave and eAU at 7, payroll handover at 6-7 and leave policies at 5-7. The eAU route is documented end to end — retrieved automatically from the statutory health insurer through the DATEV integration, with confirmed, pending or failed status — and approvals run on mobile with two-step chains and delegation that reverts on return. The weak end is absence data protection at 4 and sovereignty at 3 to 5, where the judges genuinely split: the high score credits the privacy policy's commitment to processing and storage within the EWR, with no third-country transfer by default, while the low ones note the captured pages name no subprocessors and leave the contracting entity's jurisdiction unconfirmed. Leave policies split over the statutory detail sitting on free calculator pages rather than product documentation. Pricing transparency scores 1 to 2 and is not counted.
Speaks for it
- The eAU is retrieved automatically from the statutory health insurer through the DATEV integration, with status shown as confirmed, pending or failed.
- Absence requests run on mobile with push approval, two-step approval chains, and delegation that is removed automatically when the approver returns.
- Entitlements are calculated automatically, with proration for part-time, joiners and leavers and statutory minimum kept apart from contractual extra leave.
- The DATEV handover moves salaries, wages, attendance and master data encrypted via the DATEV data centre, with ADP, SD Worx and Deel also named.
- Managers see only their direct reports, and viewing absence details is kept apart from managing balances and carry-over.
Held against it
- We found no public information on who may see a sickness reason or certificate, or on retention settings for absence records.
- We found no public information on a data processing agreement or documentation aimed at a works council.
- The captured pages name no subprocessors and leave the contracting entity's jurisdiction unconfirmed.
- The API appears only as a line in the Connect plan, and we found no public information on published API documentation, webhooks or a monthly period lock.
- We found no public information on hourly leave, half days, or automatic notices before carried-over leave expires.
Best for
- You run payroll through DATEV and want sick-leave certificates and salary data to reach your tax advisor over one encrypted connection.
- You manage shift or field-service teams from 25 employees and want absence requests approved from a phone.
- You prorate leave for part-time staff, joiners and leavers across locations with different holiday calendars.
Avoid if
- Your procurement requires a published subprocessor list and a contracting entity confirmed on the vendor's own pages.
- You need published prices before shortlisting — the pricing page names the Starter, Growth and Connect tiers but no figures.
- You plan to wire absence data into your own stack — APIs and integrations sit only in the top Connect plan.
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 | 2 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
Entitlements are calculated automatically per employee — part-time, parental leave and maternity protection included — with regional holiday calendars assigned per location, proration for joiners and leavers, and statutory minimum leave kept apart from contractual extra leave with the paragraphs named. We found no public information on hourly leave, half days, or automatic notices before carried-over leave expires, so I stop short of the higher mark. 5 6 7
The Managing Director
Kenjo sets the leave rules once and calculates entitlements per person, with part-time prorated against full-time, parental leave and maternity protection handled by paragraph, and a holiday calendar assignable per office or location — that answers my two-federal-states problem, and statutory minimum versus contractual extra leave is even kept apart. Carry-over can be adjusted and every policy change is documented traceably, but I found no public information on hourly leave, half days, or a carry-over expiry that warns employees before their leave lapses, which is exactly where my liability sits. 5 6 7
The Payroll Accountant
Kenjo states it calculates entitlement automatically per employee, including part-time, parental leave and maternity protection, prorates joiners and leavers, and assigns a holiday calendar per office or location that feeds every calculation. Contractual annual entitlement, statutory minimum and contractual extra leave are kept as separate calculation factors, custom leave types such as special and educational leave are supported, and every policy change is documented traceably. We found no public information on half days, hourly leave, carry-over expiry with automatic notices before leave lapses, or retroactive recalculation with an audit trail. 5 6 7 8
The Data Protection Officer
Entitlements are calculated automatically with pro-rata rules for part-time staff, joiners and leavers, statutory minimum and contractual extra leave are kept apart in the calculation, and parental-leave reduction and maternity protection are modelled by paragraph. Holiday calendars are assigned per office or location, every policy change is documented traceably, and special and educational leave types exist alongside custom leave types. We found no public information on hourly leave, half days, or automatic notices to employees before carried-over leave expires, which keeps this short of a fully modelled and documented leave engine. 5 6 7 13
The HR IT Integrator
Entitlements are auto-calculated with proration for part-time, joiners and leavers, holiday calendars per office or location, and special cases like parental and maternity leave handled with the statutory paragraphs cited; every policy change is documented traceably. We found no public information on hourly leave or automatic notices to employees before carried-over leave expires, so I stay below the top of the scale. 5 6 7 8 13
The Skeptic
Entitlements are computed, not typed in: contractual annual leave, statutory minimum, proration on entry, exit and part-time are named calculation factors, holiday calendars are assigned per office or location, and every policy change is documented traceably — with automatic calculation covering part-time, parental leave and maternity protection. What I miss is the expiry machinery: we found no public information on half days, hourly leave, or automatic notices before carried-over leave lapses, and the detailed BUrlG, BEEG and MuSchG rules I can see sit on the free calculator pages rather than in product documentation. 5 6 7 8
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 run on the phone with push notifications, a two-step approval chain, automatic delegation when the approver is away, and blocking periods linked to specific teams that tell the employee why a request was refused; the approval view even shows which colleagues are already absent in the same period. I found no public information on minimum-staffing checks before approval, a named substitute field on the request itself, calendar sync, or a complete log of approvals and cancellations. 5 9 14
The Managing Director
Requests run through the phone app with push approval, a named substitute takes over automatically when the approver is away, and two-step approval gates the second level on the first — blocking periods can even be tied to specific teams, with the employee told immediately why a request was refused. Visibility is scoped by role, managers see only their direct reports, and read-only viewing is kept apart from managing balances. I found no public information on Microsoft Teams or Slack integration, calendar sync, or staffing conflicts being checked against the shift plan before approval. 5 8 9
The Payroll Accountant
Requests run through the app with push approval on the manager's phone, two-step approval chains whose second level only sees a request after the first approves, and delegation that is additive and automatically removed when the approver returns. Blocking periods can be linked to specific policies or teams, employees see immediately why a request is blocked, and who may view absence details in the calendar and overview is configurable per role down to direct reports only. We found no public information on calendar sync, Microsoft Teams or Slack integration, or reporting on pending and overdue approvals. 5 8 9 15
The Data Protection Officer
Requests run end to end on mobile with push approvals, two-step approval chains whose second level can be a named person or a group, delegation to a substitute while the approver is away, and blocking periods linked to specific policies with an explanation shown to the employee. Who may view absence details in the calendar and overview is configurable per role and criteria, and managers see only their direct reports. We found no public information on substitutes named on the request itself, calendar sync to external calendars, Microsoft Teams or Slack integration, or a logged history per request. 5 9 15
The HR IT Integrator
The everyday flow is well evidenced: mobile requests with push approvals, two-step approval chains, delegation that automatically reverts on the approver's return, blackout periods linked to specific policies, and configurable visibility of absence details per role and scope. We found no public information on Microsoft Teams or Slack integration, external calendar sync, or a complete per-request log, which is what the top of the scale asks for. 5 9 13 14
The Skeptic
This is the best-evidenced flow in the whole file: requests via app, push approval from the phone, delegation that is additive and revoked automatically on return, two-step approval with the second level gated on the first, blocking periods scoped to specific policies, bulk approve and decline, and calendar visibility where a manager sees only their direct reports. We found no public information on calendar sync, a Teams or Slack integration, or any statement that approvals and cancellations are logged. 5 8 9
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 is retrieved automatically from the statutory health insurer through a documented DATEV setup, with confirmed, pending or failed status visible, a reminder workflow for open cases, dashboard tracking and paper certificates handled for privately insured employees. We found no public information on counting sick days towards the six-week continued-pay limit, BEM thresholds, or child-sick days as a separate type. 5 10 11
The Managing Director
This is the strongest part: with an active DATEV connection the eAU is retrieved automatically from the statutory health insurer as soon as an employee reports sick, the status of every request shows as confirmed, pending or failed, and privately insured employees upload their paper certificate manually — no phone calls to insurers. The whole process is documented step by step in the help centre, including eAU reminders via workflows. I found no public information on sick days being counted towards the six-week continued-pay limit per illness, on BEM thresholds, or on child-sick days as a separate type. 5 10 11 12
The Payroll Accountant
The eAU process is documented end to end: with an active DATEV integration Kenjo retrieves the certificate automatically from the statutory health insurer when a sick request is submitted, shows each retrieval as confirmed, pending or failed, generates a fresh retrieval when the absence is edited, and handles privately insured employees through mandatory manual upload, with reminder workflows configurable for HR. What I need for payroll after that point is missing: we found no public information on counting sick days towards the six-week continued-pay limit per illness, BEM thresholds, child sick days, or sickness-benefit transitions. 5 9 10 11
The Data Protection Officer
The eAU process is documented end to end: with an active DATEV link Kenjo retrieves the certificate from the statutory health insurer automatically when a sick request is submitted, shows a confirmed, pending or failed status, re-requests it when the absence is edited, and supports reminder workflows; paper certificates for privately insured employees are handled by manual upload. However, we found no public information on counting sick days towards the six-week continued-pay limit per illness, on BEM triggers, or on child sick days as a separate type — the regulated process around continued pay is the unexplained part. 5 9 10 11
The HR IT Integrator
The eAU route is documented end to end: automatic retrieval from the statutory health insurers through the DATEV integration with LODAS or Lohn und Gehalt named, retrieval status of confirmed, pending or failed, re-triggering when a request is edited, and manual upload as the only route for privately insured employees. We found no public information on counting sick days towards the six-week continued-pay limit per illness, on BEM flagging, or on child-sick days as a separate type. 5 9 10 11
The Skeptic
The eAU here is the real thing, documented end to end: retrieved automatically from the statutory health insurer through DATEV (with LODAS and Lohn und Gehalt named as prerequisites), status shown as confirmed, pending or failed, re-requested automatically when a request is edited, paper certificates handled for privately insured employees, plus HR reminder workflows. The regulated remainder is silent — we found no public information on counting sick days towards the six-week continued-pay limit, on BEM, or on child-sick days. 5 9 10 11
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
Exports are named for DATEV, ADP, SD Worx and Deel, the DATEV transfer runs encrypted through the DATEV Rechenzentrum, absence balances feed payroll preparation and the time accounts directly, and CSV reports go to the tax accountant; APIs appear only as a Connect-tier feature. We found no public information on mapping leave types to payroll codes, a monthly period lock, webhooks, or API limits. 2 5 8 12
The Managing Director
The DATEV handover is documented end to end — salaries, hours, attendance and master data delivered through the DATEV data centre to the tax advisor, encrypted, with exports also named for ADP, SD Worx and Deel, and absence balances flowing straight into payroll preparation alongside automatic time accounts. Balances and history also come out as CSV for the payroll office. The API appears only as a feature line in the top plan, and I found no public information on payroll code mapping per leave type, a monthly period lock, webhooks or published API limits. 2 5 8 12 13
The Payroll Accountant
The DATEV handover is the strongest part: fixed salaries, hourly wages, variable payments, master data, one-time and recurring payments and eAU results go to DATEV LODAS or Lohn und Gehalt over an encrypted connection through the DATEV Rechenzentrum, synchronised monthly during the payroll process, with ADP, SD Worx and Deel also named and leave balances and time accounts feeding payroll preparation directly. APIs appear only as a feature listed for the Connect plan, and we found no public information on mapping absence types to payroll codes, a monthly period lock for past months, webhooks, or published API limits. 2 5 8 12 13
The Data Protection Officer
Four payroll destinations are named — DATEV, ADP, SD Worx and Deel — and the DATEV path is documented in depth, from consultant and client numbers through an encrypted transfer via the DATEV data centre to monthly synchronisation, with absence and overtime balances flowing straight from time tracking into payroll preparation and working times released for payroll as a collected step. We found no public information on mapping leave types to payroll codes, a period lock for monthly closing, or webhooks; an API appears only as a line in the top-tier feature list, with no published documentation or limits. 2 5 8 12 13
The HR IT Integrator
DATEV is a real connector rather than a CSV: encrypted transfer via the DATEV Rechenzentrum covering fixed salaries, hourly wages, one-time and recurring payments, attendance data and master data, with monthly auto-sync and eAU in the same channel; ADP, SD Worx and Deel are named as further exports, and balances flow from the automatic time accounts straight into payroll preparation. The API appears only as a Connect-plan feature, and we found no public information on API documentation, webhooks, configurable payroll codes per leave type or a monthly period lock — the parts I need before wiring payroll, identity and calendar together. 2 5 8 12 13
The Skeptic
The DATEV chain is documented with unusual depth — salaries, hourly wages, variable payments, attendance and master data to the salary import service via the DATEV data centre, encrypted, with eAU flowing back and monthly auto-sync — and ADP, SD Worx and Deel are named, with time accounts feeding payroll preparation directly. But the API appears only as a bullet inside the top plan with no published documentation, and we found no public information on payroll code mapping per leave type, monthly period locks, or webhooks. 2 5 8 12 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
Absence viewing is configurable separately from managing, with scopes by direct reports or area and a read-only calendar option, and the privacy policy publishes retention periods — typically three years, longer under limitation statutes — with automatic deletion for some data and processing confined to the EWR. We found no public information on field-level permissions per leave type, logging of access to sickness records, a data-processing agreement, or documentation aimed at a works agreement. 4 9 14 15
The Managing Director
The permission model is genuinely fine-grained — three blocks for requests, time-off management and approvals, scopes by direct reports or criteria, and pure read access kept apart from managing balances and carry-overs. But nothing captured says who may see a sickness reason or certificate, whether access to health-related records is logged, or how long absence records are kept; the privacy policy states EWR-only processing, yet I found no public information on a data processing agreement or on any documentation aimed at a works council. 4 9 14 15
The Payroll Accountant
Absence permissions are split into requests, management and approvals, with view rights on details in the calendar and overview assignable as own, by criteria or all employees, and managers restricted to their direct reports — more granular than a manager-sees-all default, though we found no public information on restricting sickness reasons or certificates per leave type, logging of access to health records, or a data processing agreement. Retention is published as fixed rules — analytics data auto-deleted after at most 12 months, personnel data kept up to statutory limitation periods of typically 3 to 10 years — rather than a configurable setting, and we found no public information on documentation aimed at works councils. 4 9 14 15
The Data Protection Officer
Absence visibility is genuinely granular: viewing and managing are separate permissions, scoped to own data, criteria-selected groups or everyone, with the time off page itself gated, and managers see only their direct reports — a real basis for keeping illness details away from colleagues. But the captured pages give no word on who specifically may see a sickness reason or a certificate, how long absence records are kept, or whether access to them is logged; the privacy policy's retention figures concern analytics and application data, and we found no public information on a data processing agreement or on documentation aimed at a works council. 4 9 14 15
The HR IT Integrator
Permission blocks for requests, absence management and approvals with configurable scopes are documented, and manager visibility is limited to direct reports; the privacy policy commits to processing and storage only within the EWR, particularly Germany. We found no public information on restricting sickness reasons and certificates to named roles, on configurable retention for absence records, on access logging, or on materials aimed at a works agreement. 4 9 14
The Skeptic
Permission granularity is real — viewing absence details is separate from managing balances and carry-over, scopes can be restricted by criteria, and a manager's overview is limited to direct reports — but for health data specifically we found no public information on who may see a sickness reason or certificate, on retention settings for absence records, on access logging, on a data processing agreement, or on works-council documentation. The published retention periods cover applications, talent-pool entries and AI transcripts, not absence histories. 4 9 14 15
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 privacy policy states that all processing and storage happens within the EWR, particularly Germany, with no third-country transfer by default and safeguards named if it ever occurs. We found no public information confirming the contracting entity, the hosting infrastructure, or any subprocessor — email, push and support providers alike — and we found no public information on certification. 4
The Managing Director
The privacy policy states that all processing and storage happens inside the EWR, in Germany, with no transfer to third countries by default and safeguards named for any exception — but that is the whole of what is evidenced. The captured pages give no confirmation of the contracting entity's jurisdiction, and I found no public information on subprocessors, their locations, or any certification. 4
The Payroll Accountant
The privacy policy commits to all processing and storage within the European Economic Area, particularly Germany, with no transfer to third countries by default and standard contractual clauses, binding corporate rules or an adequacy decision named as safeguards. We found no public information on the named hosting infrastructure, a published subprocessor list with locations, special-category coverage in a data processing agreement, or confirmation of the contracting entity on the vendor's own captured pages. 4
The Data Protection Officer
The privacy policy states that all processing and storage happens within the European Economic Area, particularly Germany, with no third-country transfers by default and standard contractual clauses, binding corporate rules or an adequacy decision named for any exception. Beyond that statement we found no public information confirming the contracting entity's jurisdiction, the hosting infrastructure, or the identity of a single subprocessor — including who delivers the email and push notifications that announce a sickness — so the chain cannot be verified from public pages. 4
The HR IT Integrator
The privacy policy states that all processing and storage happens within the European Economic Area, particularly Germany, with no transfer to third countries by default. We found no public information confirming the contracting entity's jurisdiction on the vendor's captured pages, and no published subprocessor list with locations, so I cannot treat the chain as sovereign end to end. 4
The Skeptic
The privacy policy promises all processing and storage within the EWR, particularly Germany, with no third-country transfer by default — hosting as standard, not an option. But the vendor names no subprocessors at all, and the contracting entity's jurisdiction is not confirmed on the captured pages, so the chain rests on a promise rather than a published list. 3 4
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
The pricing page names the Starter, Growth and Connect tiers and lists which features sit in each, with a fourteen-day free trial, but we found no public information on any price per employee, minimum users, minimum term or VAT treatment — not even a starting figure. For my twelve people I cannot compute the annual invoice from the public pages. 2 5
The Managing Director
The pricing page names three tiers and lists which features sit in each, and a 14-day free trial is advertised, but no subscription figure appears anywhere — no price per employee, no pricing basis, no minimum users, no minimum term, no VAT treatment. The only number on the page is an "Ersparnis 240.0 €" one-time savings example from a calculator, so I cannot begin to compute my annual invoice from what is public. 2 3
The Payroll Accountant
The pricing pages name the Starter, Growth and Connect plans and list which features sit in which tier, and a 14-day free trial is offered, but the only figure published is a savings example of 240.0 € tied to a one-off payment. We found no public information on a price per employee or per user, minimum headcount, minimum term or VAT treatment, so the annual invoice is not computable from public pages alone. 2 4
The Data Protection Officer
The pricing page publishes which features sit in which tier, and APIs and integrations are visibly reserved for the top tier, while two add-ons — audit reports and AI agents — are offered without figures. We found no public prices for any tier, no pricing basis, no minimum term and no VAT treatment, so a buyer cannot compute even a rough annual invoice from public pages. 1 2
The HR IT Integrator
The pricing page publishes tier names with feature lists and a 14-day free trial, but we found no public prices at all — no price per employee, no pricing basis, and no public information on minimum users or the minimum term — so the annual invoice is not computable from public pages. The only figure captured is a savings example of 240.0 € described as a one-time payment from a billing calculator, which is not a product price. 2 4
The Skeptic
The captured pricing page names three tiers and what sits in each — time tracking and absence management in every plan, APIs and integrations only at the top — but no figures come through: we found no public information on the per-employee price, the pricing basis, minimum users, minimum term or VAT treatment, and the add-ons (audit reports, AI agents, the recruiting ATS) appear without prices. I cannot compute any annual cost from what is public. 1 2 4
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 Kenjo
Is Kenjo European?
Yes. whats-best.ai classifies Kenjo as EU-Made.
Where does Kenjo store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Kenjo have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Kenjo?
As of 15 Oct 2026, the panel rates flair (2.5/5), HRlab (2.5/5) and Urlaubsverwaltung (2/5) 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 flair (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Kenjo alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 13 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.
- 31 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
- 11 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
- 6 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
- 5 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 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
- 2 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
- 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 (15)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.kenjo.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page www.kenjo.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Imprint www.kenjo.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Privacy policy www.kenjo.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Absence management www.kenjo.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Entitlements & German leave rules — found from sitemap www.kenjo.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Entitlements & German leave rules — found from sitemap www.kenjo.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Requests, approvals & team calendar — found from sitemap www.kenjo.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Requests, approvals & team calendar — found from sitemap help.kenjo.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Sick leave, eAU & continued pay — found from sitemap help.kenjo.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Sick leave, eAU & continued pay — found from sitemap help.kenjo.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Payroll handover, time tracking & API — found from sitemap help.kenjo.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Payroll handover, time tracking & API — found from sitemap www.kenjo.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 Health data, access & works council — found from sitemap help.kenjo.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 15 Health data, access & works council — found from sitemap help.kenjo.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →