Employee Scheduling
Workfeed
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Workfeed ApS · workfeed.app
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.
Workfeed at a glance
- Vendor
- Workfeed ApS
- 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 Workfeed 1/5, the mean of 6 judges. Workfeed, an employee scheduling product from Workfeed ApS, scores best on the shop floor and worst on working time rules and co-determination and privacy at 0-1. 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
Workfeed, an employee scheduling product from Workfeed ApS, scores best on the shop floor and worst on working time rules and co-determination and privacy at 0-1. In both areas, judges found no public information on rest-period or surcharge checks, visibility roles, retention or a data-processing agreement. Staff self-service is the strongest criterion at 4-6: the employee app covers availability sharing, time-off requests with instant cover finding, shift-change notifications, salary and PTO visibility, schedule-based group chats and a time clock. Roster planning scores 2-4 — auto scheduling that "automatically assign[s] the right people to the right shifts", but no public information on templates, qualifications, staffing requirements or demand inputs. Payroll and integrations sits at 3-4 on a claim of 50+ integrations including payroll, POS and booking plus an API, but no payroll system is named on the captured page. Sovereignty scores 1-2; no sovereignty attributes are on record. The shift manager scores highest overall at a weighted total of 3.2; the others land between 1.5 and 2.0. The only public pricing fact is "Get 14 days for free. No credit card required."
Speaks for it
- Employee app covers availability sharing, time-off requests with instant cover finding, salary and PTO visibility, and shift-change notifications
- Schedule-based group chats, a time clock, time tracking and in-app handbooks are named on the captured page
- Auto scheduling is advertised to "automatically assign the right people to the right shifts"
- 50+ integrations including payroll, POS and booking, plus an API for custom integrations
- 14-day free trial with no credit card required
Held against it
- Working time rules scores 0-1, with no public information on rest periods, break checks or collective-agreement surcharges
- Co-determination and privacy scores 0-1, with no public information on visibility roles, retention, deletion or a data-processing agreement
- No payroll system is named among the claimed 50+ integrations, with no public information on wage-type or surcharge handling
- Sovereignty scores 1-2, with no sovereignty attributes on record and no public information on hosting region, data-centre provider or subprocessors
- Beyond the 14-day trial, we found no public information on tier prices, per-employee rates or what the time clock and payroll connections cost
Best for
- You run a small shift-based team and mainly need an employee app for availability, time-off requests, cover finding and schedule-based chat
- You keep payroll in-house and want a scheduling and time-clock layer with an API rather than a documented payroll handoff
- Your rosters are simple enough that automatic shift assignment plus instant cover finding covers the week
Avoid if
- A works council must approve the rollout, and co-determination and privacy scored 0-1, with the works council judge writing they could not co-determine an introduction on this evidence
- Your roster must respect working-time law or collective-agreement surcharges before publication, and working time rules scored 0-1
- Your month-end close depends on a handoff to a named payroll system — the payroll judge called the integration claim "a promise, not a path"
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Roster building & demand planning | 1 of 5 |
| Working-time law & collective agreements | 0 of 5 |
| Mobile self-service for deskless staff | 2 of 5 |
| Works council & employee data | 0 of 5 |
| Payroll handoff & integrations | 2 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1 of 5 |
Roster building & demand planning
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
Auto scheduling that "automatically assign[s] the right people to the right shifts" is more than a blank calendar, and it's the one thing that would actually save my Thursday night. But I found no public information on shift templates, staffing requirements per shift, roles or qualifications, coverage gaps shown before publication, or planning driven by POS or booking data — the integrations list names POS and booking, yet nothing says they feed the plan. 1
The Operations Director
Automatic assignment is on the page — automatically assigning the right people to the right shifts — but we found no public information on templates, roles, qualifications, staffing requirements per shift or coverage gaps, and nothing ties the proposal to POS, footfall or booking demand or shows labour cost against budget while planning. For thirty locations that is a proposal with no visible method behind it. 1
The Payroll Officer
An auto-scheduling capability that automatically assigns the right people to the right shifts is a proposal claim, but we found no public information on templates, roles, qualifications, staffing requirements per shift, locations, or any demand figure the proposal is computed from. I cannot credit an engine whose inputs stay invisible. 1
The Works Council Advocate
The vendor advertises auto scheduling that automatically assigns "the right people to the right shifts", so the product proposes a roster rather than only drawing one. Beyond that headline we found no public information on shift templates, staffing requirements per shift, qualifications, coverage checks, or demand-based planning from POS or booking data. 1
The Frontline Employee
The front page promises auto scheduling that assigns the right people to the right shifts, plus finding cover when someone drops out, which is more than a wall calendar. But we found no public information on shift templates, roles or qualifications, staffing requirements per shift, coverage warnings before publication, or forecasting from sales or bookings — the pitch names a proposer without showing what it proposes from. 1
The Skeptic
"Automatically assign the right people to the right shifts" and a feature named "Auto Scheduling" suggest a system that proposes, but we found no public information on shift templates, roles and qualifications, staffing requirements per shift, coverage warnings, or any demand source such as POS revenue or bookings feeding the planner — the method behind the automatic assignment is entirely undescribed. 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
Nothing on the captured pages names a rest period, a daily hours cap, a break rule, a Minijob earnings limit or any Tarifvertrag surcharge — "Leave & Overtime" is described as handling requests, not checking the law I'd be on the hook for after an inspection. I found no public information on rule checks or warnings of any kind, so I publish at my own risk. 1
The Operations Director
Overtime appears only as something employees can get insight into alongside salary and PTO, and we found no public information on any check for daily hours, breaks, the eleven-hour rest period or Minijob earnings limits, nor any collective-agreement surcharges. No specific rule the roster would enforce or warn about is named anywhere on the captured page. 1
The Payroll Officer
We found no public information on any working-time check: no daily-hours maximum, rest period, break rule, Minijob earnings limit, or night, Sunday and holiday surcharge — only a generic leave-and-overtime capability. For a roster that must respect working-time law and collective agreements before publication, nothing on the captured page names a check it performs. 1
The Works Council Advocate
The page mentions leave and overtime handling and tracking hours "without costly errors", but names no rule anywhere — no daily maximum, no 11-hour rest period, no break check, no youth, collective-agreement or surcharge provision. We found no public information on any warning or block before a roster is published, so rule enforcement is entirely unverifiable. 1
The Frontline Employee
We found no public information on any check of daily hours, breaks or the 11-hour rest period, on Minijob earnings limits or on collective-agreement surcharges. As someone who has been rostered into a nine-hour turnaround, that silence decides this one for me. 1
The Skeptic
We found no public information on any working-time check: no daily-hours maximum, 11-hour rest period, break rule, Minijob earnings limit, youth or maternity protection, or Tarifvertrag surcharge is named anywhere. Overtime appears as tracked data alongside time tracking, but nothing describes the product warning about, let alone blocking, a violation. 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
The employee app covers most of what my team actually asks for: availability sharing, time-off requests with instant cover-finding, notifications about shift changes, a time clock, and group chats built from the schedule so shift talk stays out of private messengers. I found no public information on whether cover approvals check qualifications or rest periods, whether the time clock handles offline clock-ins, or which languages the app supports. 1
The Operations Director
The employee app covers a fair amount of the shop floor: availability sharing, time-off requests with instant cover finding, salary and PTO visibility, shift-change notifications and group chats built from the schedule. We found no public information on swap approval flows, open-shift claiming under rule checks, clock-in by app with offline handling, or language and accessibility coverage. 1
The Payroll Officer
The employee app evidences availability sharing, time-off requests with instant cover finding, shift-change notifications, and visibility of salary, PTO and overtime — well past a read-only view. We found no public information on shift swaps, open-shift claiming, app clock-in with offline handling, or language coverage. 1
The Works Council Advocate
There is a real employee app: staff share availability, request time off, see their own salary, PTO and overtime, receive shift-change notifications, clock time, and chat in schedule-based groups — that is genuine self-service for deskless staff. We found no public information on swap approval under a rule set, open-shift claiming, offline or shared-device handling, language coverage, or employees exporting their own data. 1
The Frontline Employee
There is an employee app where I can share availability, raise time-off requests, see my hours, salary and PTO, and get notifications about shift changes — most of what I need on my phone. But we found no public information on how a swap gets approved, open-shift claiming, clock-in with offline handling, or which languages the app comes in, and for colleagues who don't read the site's language that last one matters. 1
The Skeptic
An employee app with availability sharing, time-off requests, instant cover finding, PTO/salary/overtime visibility and shift-change notifications goes beyond a read-only view, and schedule-based group chats plus handbooks suggest the app is a daily tool. We found no public information on employee-to-employee shift swaps with manager approval, open-shift claiming as such, multilingual coverage, or whether clock-in happens by app or terminal. 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
Before I put a scheduling tool in front of a works council I need role-based visibility, a published DPA and retention statements, and I found no public information on any of it — nothing on who sees whose absence reasons or salary data, what is logged, or how long employee records are kept. The pages even advertise employee salary visibility without a word on configuring who can see it. 1
The Operations Director
We found no public information on role-based visibility, what is logged or retained, a data-processing agreement, or any documentation a works agreement would need; the captured page is silent on the entire subject. A tool holding availability and absence data about employees who never chose it has to show me this before any rollout. 1
The Payroll Officer
We found no public information on roles or visibility settings, on what is stored, logged or retained, on a data-processing agreement, or on anything a works council would need to see. A tool holding absence and availability data that says nothing about either is unreviewable under co-determination. 1
The Works Council Advocate
The app gathers availability, overtime and salary data about people who never chose the vendor, and on all of the questions a works agreement turns on we found no public information: visibility roles, who sees absence reasons, audit logging, retention and deletion, and any vendor documentation for works-council approval. On this evidence I could not co-determine an introduction under section 87. 1
The Frontline Employee
We found no public information on visibility roles, what is logged, retention or deletion of availability and absence data, a published data-processing agreement, or whether tracking functions can be switched off. There is nothing here a works council could approve or even negotiate from. 1
The Skeptic
No roles or visibility settings are described for the scheduling, time and salary data the product holds, and we found no public information on audit logging, retention or deletion of employee records, a data-processing agreement, or documentation for works-council approval. We also found no public information on monitoring functions such as GPS and whether they can be switched off. 1
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
Fifty-plus integrations spanning payroll, POS and booking, plus an API for custom ones, is a real ecosystem on paper. But the pages name no payroll system — no DATEV, no Lohn und Gehalt — and I found no public information on surcharge or wage-type handling or any check step before transmission, so I can't tell what my tax adviser would actually receive at month end. 1
The Operations Director
Payroll, POS and booking are named among fifty-plus integrations, with an API offered for custom builds, but we found no named payroll system and no public information on wage-type or surcharge mapping or a lock step before transmission. Category names are a start; the specifics that decide whether my tax adviser signs off are not on the page. 1
The Payroll Officer
Fifty-plus integrations spanning payroll, POS and booking plus an API is a genuine handoff claim, but no payroll system is named — DATEV, Lohn und Gehalt or otherwise — and we found no public information on surcharge or wage-type handling before transmission. For my month close that is a promise, not a path. 1
The Works Council Advocate
"50+ integrations, including payroll, POS, booking" plus an open API is a step beyond a bare export claim, but the page names not a single payroll system. We found no public information on surcharge and wage-type handling, any lock step before transmission, or scoped access for the tax adviser. 1
The Frontline Employee
The vendor names the integration categories — payroll, POS and booking — with 50+ integrations claimed and an API for building custom ones, which is more than a retyped spreadsheet. But not a single payroll system is named, and we found no public information on surcharge handling, wage types, or any lock step before the month goes out. 1
The Skeptic
"50+ integrations, including payroll, POS, booking" plus an API is a real, countable claim, but no payroll system is named, so a buyer cannot tell whether a DATEV or Lohn und Gehalt path exists, in which tier the time clock and any export sit, or how surcharges and absences travel to payroll. We found no public information on wage-type mapping, a lock step before transmission, or documentation of the API beyond its existence. 1
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 Workfeed ApS, a Danish company form, which points at an EU vendor — and that is where the evidence ends. I found no public information on where employee availability, absence and time-clock data is hosted, who the subprocessors behind push, messaging and support are, or any certification, so I can't tell a works council where the data sits. 1
The Operations Director
The contracting entity is Workfeed ApS, a Danish company form, but we found no public information on hosting region, data-centre provider, subprocessors, certification or a DPA covering employee data. That leaves an assumption where I need documented facts before employee data goes anywhere. 1
The Payroll Officer
No sovereignty attributes are on record: we found no public information on hosting region, data-centre provider, contracting entity details or subprocessors. Where the employee data lives and who touches it are entirely unevidenced, which is the weakest position a scheduling vendor can publish. 1
The Works Council Advocate
The contracting entity appears to be a Danish company, which points into the EU, but that is the only signal. We found no public information on where employee data is hosted, which subprocessors sit behind the messaging and notifications, or whether a data-processing agreement is published. 1
The Frontline Employee
The vendor trades as a Danish ApS, so the contracting entity looks European, but that is where the trail ends: we found no public information on where employee data is hosted, the data-centre provider, or any named subprocessor. My availability and absence data could be moving through anywhere. 1
The Skeptic
The vendor is Workfeed ApS, which points to a Danish contracting entity, but we found no public information on the hosting region or data-centre provider, and no subprocessor list is on record — push notification, analytics and support providers are entirely unaddressed. Employee availability, absence and salary data sit somewhere undocumented. 1
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
The only pricing fact published is a 14-day free trial with no credit card required — there is no per-employee or per-location price, no tier breakdown, no billing period and no word on whether the time clock or payroll export costs extra. My annual invoice for a two-site, forty-head business is simply not computable from what's public. 1
The Operations Director
The only public pricing statement is a 14-day free trial with no credit card required; we found no public prices for any tier, per-employee rate or module such as the time clock or payroll export. A buyer cannot compute even a rough annual invoice for their headcount from the captured page. 1
The Payroll Officer
The only pricing fact captured is a 14-day free trial with no credit card required; we found no public information on tiers, per-employee or per-location prices, add-ons such as the time clock or payroll export, minimum terms or VAT treatment. No annual invoice can be computed from public pages alone. 1
The Works Council Advocate
The only public commercial terms are a 14-day free trial with no credit card required. Beyond that we found no public information on per-employee or per-location prices, tier contents, or what the time clock and payroll integrations cost, so no buyer can compute an annual invoice from what is published. 1
The Frontline Employee
The only public pricing fact is "Get 14 days for free. No credit card required." — beyond the trial we found no public information on tiers, per-employee prices, billing periods, or what the time clock and payroll connections cost. No manager of a small team can budget this from the public page. 1
The Skeptic
The only public figure is a 14-day free trial with no credit card required; we found no public price for any plan, module or seat, so a buyer cannot compute even a rough annual invoice. Nothing states how the time clock, payroll integrations or whistleblowing features are packaged. 1
Questions about Workfeed
Is Workfeed European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Workfeed is based.
Where does Workfeed store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
Does Workfeed have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Workfeed?
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: Workfeed 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.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- We found no public information on compliance on the pages we read (workfeed.app). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. 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
Sources (1)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page workfeed.app Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →