Employee Scheduling
Humanity
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Humanity, Inc. (a TCP Software company) · www.humanity.com
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.
Humanity at a glance
- Vendor
- Humanity, Inc. (a TCP Software company)
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Humanity 2/5, the mean of 6 judges. Humanity is an employee scheduling product of Humanity, Inc., a TCP Software company, contracting as TimeClock Plus, LLC of San Angelo, Texas. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 20 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 21 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Humanity is an employee scheduling product of Humanity, Inc., a TCP Software company, contracting as TimeClock Plus, LLC of San Angelo, Texas. It is strongest on rostering mechanics: roster planning runs 4-7, and staff self-service and payroll and integrations each sit at a flat 5 — a mobile app covers time-off requests, shift release and availability, open shifts are posted and approved from the phone, and connectors to ADP, Oracle, Workday and BambooHR appear alongside an open API. Weakest are working time rules at a flat 3 — compliance is claimed generically and no specific rule is named — and sovereignty at 0-1, where the captured pages leave hosting region and subprocessors unstated and transfers rest on Data Privacy Framework certification and standard contractual clauses. The genuine split is roster planning: the payroll officer scored 7 for a tool that auto-builds schedules and matches qualified staff, while the frontline employee scored 4, citing labour cost visible only in reports and a forecast with no named data source. Weighted totals span 3.2-4.6; pricing transparency scores 0-2, with a trial request and no public price figure.
Speaks for it
- Roster planning scores 4-7, on advertised AI demand forecasting, auto-built schedules, qualified-staff matching and open shifts posted from the mobile app.
- Staff self-service scores a flat 5, with time-off requests, shift release and availability adjustment from a mobile app and updates by email, app and SMS.
- Payroll and integrations scores a flat 5, with named connectors to ADP, Oracle, Workday and BambooHR, an open API, and client-hosted data disclosed to payroll processors on client instruction.
- The privacy policy names what is stored — pay rates, union affiliation, clock-in and clock-out times and locations — with a retention policy, secure deletion on expiry and biometric data permanently deleted within three years of last interaction.
Held against it
- Working time rules scores a flat 3, with compliance claimed generically and no specific rule — daily hour limits, 11-hour rest, breaks, earnings limits — named on the captured pages.
- Sovereignty scores 0-1: the contracting entity is TimeClock Plus, LLC of San Angelo, Texas, with hosting region and subprocessors unstated on the captured pages and transfers resting on Data Privacy Framework certification and standard contractual clauses.
- Co-determination and privacy scores 3-4, with no public information on configurable visibility of absence reasons or location, an audit log of views and changes, or switching location tracking off.
- Labour cost appears only in reports, with no public information on cost against budget while planning, the data source behind the AI forecast, or coverage gaps shown before publication.
- No German payroll path — DATEV or Lohn und Gehalt — appears on the captured pages, nor wage-type or surcharge mapping or a lock step before transmission.
Best for
- You need demand-driven roster building with automatic schedules, qualified-staff matching and open shifts managed from a mobile app.
- Your payroll or HR stack already includes ADP, Oracle, Workday or BambooHR, or you plan to build on the open API.
- You want staff handling their own time-off requests, shift releases and availability, with schedule updates by email, app and SMS.
Avoid if
- You need named working-time rules — daily hour limits, an 11-hour rest period, break rules — before trusting the conflict checks; we found no public information naming any.
- You need EU-based processing or a published subprocessor list for availability, absence and clock-in location data; we found no public information on either.
- You must supply a works council with configurable data visibility, an audit log of views, or monitoring functions that can be switched off.
- Your payroll runs on a German system such as DATEV and you expect the connector to be provided; we found no public information on a German payroll path.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Roster building & demand planning | 3 of 5 |
| Working-time law & collective agreements | 1.5 of 5 |
| Mobile self-service for deskless staff | 2.5 of 5 |
| Works council & employee data | 2 of 5 |
| Payroll handoff & integrations | 2.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 0 of 5 |
Roster building & demand planning
panel disagrees
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How a plan gets built across locations, roles and qualifications — templates, staffing requirements, forecasting from sales or occupancy, and whether the product proposes a roster or only draws one.
0 — A shared calendar of shifts; no templates, no roles or qualifications, and no notion of how many people a shift needs.
3 — Shift templates and a weekly grid per location, with roles attached, but staffing needs and qualifications are the planner's memory rather than the system's.
5 — Templates, roles and qualifications, staffing requirements per shift, open shifts, multiple locations and departments, and coverage gaps shown before publication.
8 — Demand-based planning from a named data source (POS revenue, footfall, occupancy or bookings), automatic roster proposals the planner can accept or adjust, labour cost shown against budget while planning, and cross-location staff sharing.
10 — Planning closes the loop: forecast, proposed roster and actual hours compared in one place, the proposal explains which rule or demand figure drove each assignment, and the vendor documents the forecasting method rather than calling it AI.
The Shift Manager
The headline promises what I want on a Thursday night — "forecast demand, auto-build compliant schedules, and match available, qualified staff to shifts" — and open shifts, email/app/SMS notifications and labour cost reports are real features on the page. But the forecast never names its data source, cost is reported after the fact rather than weighed against budget while planning, and we found no public information on templates, staffing requirements per shift, coverage gaps before publication, or sharing staff across locations. 1
The Operations Director
Automatic schedule building with demand forecasting and qualification matching is promised, open shifts are posted from the mobile app, and reports plus real-time adjustments are mentioned, so the product proposes a roster rather than only drawing one. But the demand source behind the forecast is never named — no POS revenue, footfall or occupancy feed appears — the method is presented only as AI, and we found no public information on labour cost against budget while the plan is still editable or staff shared across locations. 1
The Payroll Officer
The captured pages show AI demand forecasting, automatic schedule building that matches available, qualified staff, and managers posting open shifts — a proposal tool, not just a drawn grid. But the forecast's data source is never named, labour cost appears only in reports rather than against budget while planning, and the method is branded "AI" rather than documented; we found no public information on templates, coverage gaps before publication or cross-location staff sharing. 1
The Works Council Advocate
AI forecasting that predicts busy periods, auto-builds rosters and matches available, qualified staff is advertised alongside open shifts — that is a proposal engine, not just a calendar, and demand-based staffing numbers are stated. We found no public information naming the data source behind the forecast, on templates, coverage gaps shown before publication, cross-location staff sharing, or labour cost shown against budget while planning, and the method is sold as "AI" rather than documented. 1
The Frontline Employee
The pages claim AI demand forecasting, auto-built schedules, qualified-staff matching and open shifts, but the forecast never names the data source it runs on, and we found no public information on templates, staffing requirements per shift, coverage warnings before publication, or cross-location staff sharing. Labour cost shows up only as reports pulled after the fact, not against budget while planning. 1
The Skeptic
Demand forecasting and automatic schedule building are claimed, and open shifts plus qualified-staff matching appear, but the pages never name the data source the forecast draws on or document the method behind the 'AI' label. We found no public information on templates, staffing requirements per shift, coverage gaps shown before publication, or labour cost shown against budget while planning — cost appears only in the form of reports. 1
Working-time law & collective agreements
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether the roster knows the rules it is subject to — ArbZG rest periods and maximum hours, youth and maternity protection, Minijob earnings limits, Tarifvertrag and works-agreement rules, surcharges — and whether it enforces them, warns, or leaves them to the export.
0 — No working-time rules described anywhere; the pages mention no check on daily hours, breaks or rest periods.
3 — Compliance is claimed as "supported" but the pages name no specific rule, or only a generic overtime warning exists.
5 — Named checks for the ArbZG daily maximum, the 11-hour rest period and breaks, plus a Minijob earnings warning, shown to the planner before publication; whether the check blocks or only warns is stated.
8 — Configurable rule sets per contract or employee group covering Tarifvertrag surcharges (night, Sunday, holiday), time accounts, youth-protection limits and works-agreement rules, with the planner's override of a violation recorded and reasoned.
10 — The rules are modelled as law, not as warnings: maintained rule sets for named collective agreements, sector-specific exceptions (care, hospitality) documented with the statute they rely on, every override attributable, and published guidance mapping each feature to the provision it serves.
The Shift Manager
"Customize your scheduling rules and catch conflicts before they become violations" plus "auto-build compliant schedules" is the entire compliance story, and it names no rule I can hold the vendor to. We found no public information on rest periods, daily hour limits, breaks, Minijob earnings limits or collective-agreement surcharges, nor on whether a caught conflict blocks publication or only warns. 1
The Operations Director
Compliance is claimed in general terms — customisable scheduling rules, collective bargaining agreements, conflicts caught before they become violations — but the captured pages name no specific rule: no daily hours maximum, no rest period, no break rule, no earnings-limit warning. We found no public information on whether a conflict blocks or only warns, on rule sets per employee group, or on night, Sunday and holiday surcharges. 1
The Payroll Officer
Compliance is claimed generically — "customize your scheduling rules and catch conflicts" and "auto-build compliant schedules" — yet no specific rule is ever named: no daily-hour maximum, no eleven-hour rest, no breaks, no Minijob earnings limit. As the one who answers for every surcharge, I found no public information on night, Sunday or holiday supplements, Tarifvertrag handling, youth protection or time accounts; whatever is checked is left to the planner's own configuration. 1
The Works Council Advocate
Compliance is claimed in general terms — "auto-build compliant schedules" and customisable rules that catch conflicts before they become violations, with labor laws and collective bargaining agreements indicated as supported — but we found no public information naming a single specific rule: nothing on daily maximum hours, the eleven-hour rest period, breaks, or earnings limits. For a works agreement I need to know which check fires and whether it blocks or merely warns, and the captured pages give me neither. 1
The Frontline Employee
Compliance is claimed generically — customisable scheduling rules that catch conflicts, schedules auto-built "compliant" — but the pages name no specific rule: no daily-hours maximum, no 11-hour rest period, no break rule, no Minijob earnings limit, no surcharges. For someone closing at 23:00 and opening at 07:00 there is no evidence the roster itself would ever stop that. 1
The Skeptic
Compliance is claimed exactly the way my files are full of — customize your scheduling rules and 'catch conflicts before they become violations' — with no specific rule named. We found no public information on the daily hours maximum, the 11-hour rest period, breaks, Minijob earnings limits or collective-agreement surcharges, and the pages do not state whether a conflict blocks publication, warns, or merely surfaces in a report. 1
Mobile self-service for deskless staff
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What the employee on the shop floor actually gets: a mobile app to read the roster, enter availability, request and accept swaps, claim open shifts and clock in — in their language, on their own device or a shared one.
0 — No employee access; the roster is printed or sent as a PDF.
3 — A read-only app or web view of one's own shifts, with changes still requested by phone or chat.
5 — Mobile app with availability entry, absence requests, shift-swap requests with manager approval, open-shift claiming and push notification of changes.
8 — Swaps and open shifts resolved under the rule set (qualifications and rest periods checked before approval), clock-in by app or shared terminal with offline handling, multilingual interface, and team communication that keeps shift talk out of private messengers.
10 — Self-service is designed for people who never open a laptop: swap and cover flows that resolve without a manager where the rules allow, accessibility and language coverage stated, use on a shared or personal device both supported, and employees able to see and export the data held about them.
The Shift Manager
Staff can request time off, release shifts and adjust availability from the mobile app, managers post open shifts and approve requests from theirs, and updates go out via email, app and SMS — the basic Thursday-night-to-Saturday-morning loop is covered. We found no public information on swap approvals checked against qualifications or rest periods, clocking in from the phone, offline handling, or which languages the interface offers. 1
The Operations Director
Employees get a mobile app with availability adjustment, time-off requests and shift release, managers post open shifts and approve requests from their phones, and changes go out by email, app and SMS. We found no public information on swaps or open-shift claims being checked against qualifications and rest rules before approval, on clock-in by app or shared terminal with offline handling, or on languages beyond English. 1
The Payroll Officer
The mobile app lets staff adjust availability, request time off and release shifts, managers post open shifts and approve requests, and updates go out by email, app and SMS — that is the self-service core. What I did not find: swap or cover approvals checked against qualifications and rest periods, clock-in by app with offline handling, stated languages or accessibility, or any mention of shared devices and employees exporting their own data. 1
The Works Council Advocate
Staff get a real mobile app — requesting time off, releasing shifts, adjusting availability — with open shifts posted and updates pushed by email, mobile app and SMS, and manager approvals named in the app. We found no public information on swaps resolved under the rule set, offline or shared-device clock-in, language coverage, or employees being able to see and export the data held about them. 1
The Frontline Employee
The mobile app offers time-off requests, releasing shifts and adjusting availability, open shifts are posted and requests approved from the phone, and updates come via email, app and SMS — the basics that stop shift talk landing in my private chats. But the app is described around the manager posting and approving, and we found no public information on clock-in from the phone, offline handling, or interface languages for staff. 1
The Skeptic
The mobile app carries the core employee flows: adjusting availability, requesting time off, releasing shifts, with managers posting open shifts and approving requests, and change notifications by email, app and SMS. We found no public information on swaps resolved against qualifications or rest periods, clock-in by app with offline handling, or a multilingual interface for deskless staff. 1
Works council & employee data
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether the product can be introduced under co-determination (BetrVG § 87) — role-based visibility, what is logged, which monitoring can be switched off, retention of availability, absence and location data — and whether the vendor supplies what a works agreement needs.
0 — No roles or visibility settings described, no statement of what is stored, logged or retained, and GPS or activity tracking presented without any mention of switching it off.
3 — Basic admin and employee roles exist, but visibility of absence reasons or location data is not configurable and retention is unstated.
5 — Configurable roles limiting who sees whose data, GPS and similar tracking optional and off by default or stated as switchable, a published DPA, and a retention or deletion statement for employee records.
8 — Fine-grained visibility (absence reasons hidden from colleagues and line managers where not needed), an audit log of who viewed and changed an individual's data, configurable deletion periods, and documentation the vendor offers for works-council approval.
10 — Data minimisation is designed in and evidenced: a model works agreement or feature-by-feature data inventory published, no performance or behaviour scoring of individuals, monitoring functions individually deactivatable, and deletion executed automatically per configured period.
The Shift Manager
The privacy policy is candid about what is held on each person — clock-in and clock-out times and locations, leave reasons, pay rates, even union affiliation — and commits to a retention schedule with secure deletion, biometrics permanently deleted within three years, and no sale of personal data. But we found no public information on configurable visibility of absence reasons or location data, an audit log of views and changes, switching location tracking off, or any documentation a works council could build a works agreement on. 2
The Operations Director
The published privacy policy is concrete about what is held — schedules, pay rates, union affiliation, clock-in and clock-out times and locations — with a retention policy, deletion rights and a three-year outer limit for biometric data, which is real material for a works council. Beyond that we found no public information on visibility roles, an audit log of views and changes, switching off location capture, or works-council documentation; retention periods for the non-biometric data are referenced but not published. 1 2
The Payroll Officer
The privacy pages are candid about what is stored — profile data down to pay rates and union affiliation, plus clock-in location, leave and hours — and they publish biometric retention (three years at most) and deletion rights, which a works agreement can at least cite. But co-determination essentials are absent from the evidence: we found no public information on configurable visibility of absence reasons or location data, an audit log, monitoring that can be switched off, or a published data-processing agreement. 1 2
The Works Council Advocate
The privacy policy is at least explicit about what is stored — clock-in and clock-out location, leave reasons including sick and third-party defined reasons, health and religious data, union affiliation, pay rates — with a retention policy promising secure deletion and a concrete biometric deletion rule. But we found no public information on configurable visibility of absence reasons or location, on an audit log of who viewed or changed an individual's data, on switching monitoring functions off, or on any documentation the vendor offers for works-council approval, and location capture is described without a public statement on making it optional. That is half the file a works agreement needs. 2
The Frontline Employee
The privacy policy states what is kept — clock-in and clock-out times and locations, leave reasons, pay rates, union affiliation — with a retention policy, biometric deletion within three years, deletion rights and a DPO contact. But we found no public information on configurable roles or visibility of absence reasons, no audit log, nothing a works council could use, and clock-in location is processed with nothing said about switching it off. 2
The Skeptic
The privacy policy does state what is stored — profile data down to pay rates and union affiliation, plus clock-in and clock-out locations — and a retention policy with deletion on expiry exists, with biometric data permanently deleted within three years of last interaction or earlier. But we found no public information on configurable role-based visibility, an audit log of who viewed an employee's data, any way to switch off location tracking, or documentation a works council could use for approval. 2
Payroll handoff & integrations
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How planned and worked hours, surcharges and absences reach payroll — DATEV, Lohn und Gehalt, the tax adviser — and how the roster connects to the POS, HR and time systems a shift business already runs.
0 — No payroll path and no integrations; the month leaves as a spreadsheet someone retypes.
3 — Generic CSV export said to suit payroll, with no named payroll system and no surcharge handling.
5 — A named payroll integration or documented export (e.g. DATEV Lohn und Gehalt or LODAS) covering hours, absences and surcharges, plus at least one named POS or HR integration.
8 — Vendor-maintained payroll integrations with a lock step before transmission, wage types mapped per surcharge, POS integrations feeding forecasting, an HR master-data sync, and a documented API.
10 — Payroll is designed for, not exported to: several named payroll systems maintained, retro corrections after the close handled, the tax adviser given scoped access, and a versioned public API with webhooks and a deprecation policy.
The Shift Manager
Named connectors to ADP, Oracle, Workday and BambooHR plus an open API, with time clock hardware and a time product in the same family, take this beyond a generic export. But we found no public information on how surcharges and wage types reach payroll, any lock step before transmission, a European payroll system, or how deep the API documentation goes. 1 2
The Operations Director
Integrations with ADP, Oracle, Workday and BambooHR plus an open API are published, so planned and worked hours can reach payroll by connector rather than a retyped spreadsheet. We found no public information on wage types per surcharge, a lock step before transmission, a POS feed into the forecast, or a connector to DATEV or Lohn und Gehalt. 1 2
The Payroll Officer
Named integrations — ADP, Oracle, Workday, BambooHR — plus an open API beat a CSV dump, and the privacy policy confirms hours worked and leave flow onward to payroll processors on client instruction. But no German payroll system appears anywhere in the captured pages: no DATEV, no Lohn und Gehalt, no tax-adviser access, and nothing on wage types for night, Sunday or holiday surcharges, a lock step before transmission or retro corrections after the close. 1 2
The Works Council Advocate
Named integrations to ADP, Oracle, Workday and BambooHR are advertised with an open API, and the privacy policy confirms payroll processors, benefits providers and ERP vendors receive client-hosted data on the client's instruction. We found no public information on surcharge or wage-type mapping, a lock step before transmission, or any German payroll path such as DATEV, so the German payroll handoff would rest on the buyer's own work. 1 2
The Frontline Employee
Named payroll and HR systems — ADP, Oracle, Workday, BambooHR — plus a claimed open API and time products in the family is a real handoff rather than retyping, with client data disclosed to payroll processors on client instruction. But we found no public information on surcharge or wage-type mapping, any lock step before transmission, or POS systems feeding the forecast. 1 2
The Skeptic
Named integrations exist — ADP, Oracle, Workday, BambooHR — with an open API claimed, and the privacy policy confirms client-hosted data is disclosed to payroll processors on client instruction, which meets the bar of a named payroll path plus named HR systems. We found no public information on surcharge or wage-type mapping, a lock step before transmission, or actual API documentation — 'plugs right into' is the whole story given. 1 2
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where the employee data lives, who the contracting entity is, who the subprocessors are, and whether that is documented rather than assumed. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; weighted seriously here, because a scheduling tool holds availability, absence and often location data about employees who had no say in the vendor.
0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting region unstated or non-EU, subprocessors not named.
3 — EU hosting offered as an option or claimed without a provider, while the contracting entity is non-EU or the subprocessor list is absent.
5 — EU hosting as standard and an EU contracting entity, but the subprocessor chain (messaging, push notification, analytics, support) includes non-EU providers without an explained safeguard.
8 — EU or DACH hosting with a named data-centre provider, EU contracting entity, full subprocessor list published, and any non-EU processing — push notification services included — named with its legal basis.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: vendor, entity, hosting and every subprocessor in the EU, certification published, and a DPA that covers the employee data the app collects on personal devices.
The Shift Manager
The contracting entity is TimeClock Plus, LLC of San Angelo, Texas, subject to FTC enforcement, relying on the EU-US Data Privacy Framework and standard contractual clauses for transfers out of Europe. We found no public information on the hosting region, the ownership structure, or any subprocessor list — for availability, leave reasons and clock-in locations of a European crew, everything visible points to a US footing with transfer safeguards documented rather than EU processing. 2
The Operations Director
The contracting entity is TimeClock Plus, LLC of San Angelo, Texas, and the only certification shown is the US Data Privacy Framework; the captured pages leave hosting region and subprocessors unstated. For a tool holding absence, union affiliation and clock-in location data, we found no public information on EU hosting, an EU contracting entity, or a published subprocessor list. 2
The Payroll Officer
The contracting entity is TimeClock Plus, LLC of San Angelo, Texas; the hosting region is unconfirmed on the vendor's own captured pages, and we found no published subprocessor list — for a tool holding absence data, clock-in location and pay rates of employees, none of what a European buyer needs is in evidence. DPF certification governs transfers to the United States; it is not European hosting. 2
The Works Council Advocate
The contracting entity is TimeClock Plus, LLC of San Angelo, Texas, and transfers out of the EU rest on Data Privacy Framework certification and standard contractual clauses — a transfer model, not EU hosting. We found no public information on the hosting region, an EU contracting option, or a single named subprocessor; for a system that stores absence reasons, union affiliation and clock-in location of employees who never chose this vendor, I could not recommend signing a works agreement on these facts. 2
The Frontline Employee
The contracting entity is TimeClock Plus, LLC of San Angelo, Texas, the hosting region is not confirmed on the vendor's own captured pages, and no subprocessor list is published; the only EU-facing element is self-certification under the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework. My availability and clock-in locations are not staying on European ground on this evidence. 2
The Skeptic
The contracting entity is TimeClock Plus, LLC of San Angelo, Texas, subject to FTC enforcement and relying on the Data Privacy Framework with standard contractual clauses as transfer mechanism. Hosting region and subprocessors are not stated on the captured pages, so for a European buyer holding availability, absence and clock-in location data of employees, we found no public information placing any of that data in the EU. 2
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the real annual invoice for their headcount and locations — including the time clock, payroll export, forecasting and other modules sold as add-ons — from public pages alone.
0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.
3 — A per-employee headline exists, but which features sit in which tier, the add-on modules, or a minimum seat or location count are unpriced or unmentioned.
5 — Per-employee or per-location prices public for the main tiers with the billing period stated, but at least one commonly needed piece (time clock, payroll export, forecasting, terminal hardware) is an unpriced add-on.
8 — Every tier and add-on priced publicly with the per-employee maths, how inactive or seasonal staff are counted, minimum term and VAT treatment stated; only genuinely custom work lacks a number.
10 — Complete price computability: a calculator or table producing the annual invoice for a given headcount, location count and module selection, including hardware, onboarding and renewal terms.
The Shift Manager
A pricing link sits in the navigation and a trial can be requested, but no price figure appears on the pages provided: no per-employee rate, no tier contents, nothing on what the time clock, forecasting or payroll connections cost. An operator cannot put even a rough annual invoice together from public information. 1
The Operations Director
The navigation shows a pricing section and a trial request, but the captured pages show no price figures — no per-employee rate, no tier contents, no prices for the time clock, hardware or forecasting. We found no public information from which an operator could compute an annual invoice for a given headcount and location count. 1
The Payroll Officer
The captured pages show a Pricing entry in the navigation and a trial offer, but no price for any tier — no per-employee figure, no billing period, nothing for the time clock, payroll or forecasting modules. A buyer cannot compute the annual invoice from what is public; it stays a sales conversation. 1
The Works Council Advocate
A pricing item sits in the navigation beside a trial request, but we found no public price figure on the captured pages — no per-employee rate, no tier contents, no prices for the time clock, hardware or forecasting modules. A buyer cannot compute an annual invoice from anything captured; everything points to a sales conversation. 1
The Frontline Employee
The site navigation shows a Pricing item and a trial, but the captured pages contain no price at all — no per-employee figure, no tiers, and nothing on what the time clock, forecasting or hardware cost. A buyer cannot compute any invoice from this. 1
The Skeptic
The pages show a pricing section and a trial request, but we found no public price figure of any kind — no per-employee rate, no tiers, no add-on prices for the time clock or forecasting, and no statement of how seasonal staff are counted. A buyer cannot compute an invoice from public information; the path offered is a trial request, which is a sales conversation. 1
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Humanity
Is Humanity European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Humanity is based.
Where does Humanity store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
Does Humanity have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Humanity?
As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates Bizimply (3/5), gastromatic (3/5) and Shiftbase (3/5) highest among the other 25 Employee Scheduling 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 gastromatic (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Humanity alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 20 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 — Data residency. 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.
- 3 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
- 1 hosting 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
- 1 legal 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
- 1 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
Sources (2)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.humanity.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Privacy policy — found from the homepage tcpsoftware.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →