HR Management
Breathe
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Breathe HR Ltd (part of Zellis Group) · www.breathehr.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Breathe, from Breathe HR Ltd (part of Zellis Group), is an HR Management product for businesses with up to 250 people, marketed to 17,000+ UK SMEs. Time and absence is the strongest criterion at a flat 3: leave requests, single-click approvals and an overview of upcoming leave are evidenced, while we found no public information on automatic entitlement, carry-over, sickness or working-time recording. Recruiting and onboarding scored 0-1, employee data governance 0-1: we found no public information on the join path, a data-processing agreement, retention, deletion, roles or an audit log. Core HR records scored 1-2 — leave requests imply employee records, but document storage, org chart, custom fields and change history are unevidenced — and payroll readiness 0-1, with no named payroll system or export format. Sovereignty spans 1-3, the widest split: the top score cites UK adequacy, the low scores a Horsham, United Kingdom address and an undocumented processing chain; no sovereignty attributes are on record. Published commercial facts: a free trial without credit card, a cancellable subscription.
Speaks for it
- Leave requests, single-click approvals and an overview of upcoming leave are confirmed on the captured page.
- A free holiday-entitlement calculator is offered as a standalone tool on the site.
- Support articles, FAQs and a support team are available during the trial and after setup.
- A free trial is offered with no credit card required.
- Subscription plans can be cancelled anytime with no long-term contracts.
Held against it
- The captured page names no payroll system, export format or connector.
- We found no public information on applicant tracking, careers pages or onboarding checklists.
- We found no public information on a data-processing agreement, retention periods, deletion, configurable roles or an audit log.
- We found no public information on document storage, an org chart, custom fields or change history.
- We found no public information on working-time recording that would meet the German recording duty.
Best for
- You need a request-and-approve leave flow and an overview of upcoming leave for a business of up to 250 people.
- Your payroll and recruiting run in other systems and leave management is the first HR process you want to digitise.
- You want to evaluate at no upfront cost, with a free trial that requires no credit card.
Avoid if
- You need a payroll handoff with a named payroll system and a defined export format at month-end.
- You need applicant tracking and onboarding in the same tool as leave management.
- You must show a works council or data-protection officer a data-processing agreement, retention periods and an audit log before installation.
- You need an evidenced European processing chain with documented safeguards before signing.
The scores
Digital personnel file & data model
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The system of record: employee master data, the digital personnel file, org structure, custom fields, and whether history is kept rather than overwritten.
0 — A contact list with job titles; no document storage, no org structure, no history — changes overwrite what was there.
3 — Employee records with document upload, but a flat structure: no org chart, few or no custom fields, and no dated history of contract or salary changes.
5 — Digital personnel file with structured document types, an org chart, custom fields, and change history on the core employment fields.
8 — Complete record: versioned contract and compensation history with effective dates, document templates with e-signature, org structure supporting multiple entities and cost centres, and granular field-level permissions.
10 — The file is the single source of truth an auditor could work from: full effective-dated history on every field, retention rules per document type, delegated administration per entity, and export that reproduces the record intact.
The People Lead
Leave requests with one-click approval mean employee records exist, but we found no public information on document storage, the org chart, custom fields, or history of contract and salary changes. The vendor states it is built for businesses with up to 250 people, so it was never a candidate to be the system of record for my 400. 1
The Payroll Officer
Leave requests imply people records, but I found no public information on the digital personnel file, document storage, an org chart, custom fields, or dated change history on contracts and salary. For month-end that is the whole question — where a backdated salary change would live — and nothing on the captured page answers it. 1
The Works Council Advocate
The captured page evidences leave management and a claim of forty-plus features for firms up to 250 people, but we found no public information on a digital personnel file, document storage, an org chart, custom fields or any change history. A system of record whose record structure the captured pages do not document is not something I can take to the Betriebsrat as the personnel file. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pages describe a leave-and-performance product for businesses with up to 250 people, and we found no public information on document storage, an org chart, custom fields, or change history on contract and salary. Employee records with modules around them are evidenced; the digital personnel file itself is not. 1
The IT Integrator
The only signal is a claim of "40+ features" aimed at businesses with up to 250 people; we found no public information on document storage, an org chart, custom fields, or whether changes are kept as dated history rather than overwritten. I cannot treat this as a system of record on what is shown. 1
The Skeptic
The captured homepage advertises forty-plus features without naming a single personnel-file capability, and we found no public information on document storage, org charts, custom fields, or change history. Leave requests confirm employees exist as records, and that is where the evidence stops. 1
Payroll handoff
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether the month closes cleanly into payroll — DATEV, Lohn und Gehalt, an in-house system or an external tax adviser — and how much of that is automated rather than re-typed.
0 — No payroll path stated at all; whatever leaves the system leaves as a spreadsheet somebody retypes.
3 — Generic CSV export said to be usable for payroll, with no named payroll system, no defined format and no handling of mid-month changes.
5 — A named payroll integration or a documented export format for at least one major system (e.g. DATEV LODAS/Lohn und Gehalt), covering the recurring monthly fields.
8 — Certified or vendor-maintained integration with a named payroll provider, covering variable pay, absences and mid-month joiners and leavers, with a documented pre-payroll check.
10 — Payroll is a first-class part of the product: maintained bidirectional integrations with several named systems, an auditable approval and lock step before transmission, retro-accounting for backdated changes, and the tax adviser given their own access.
The People Lead
We found no public information on a named payroll system, a defined export format, or any pre-payroll check — the nearest statement is a partnership with "a variety of apps and integrations", none of them named. My month would still close on spreadsheets somebody retypes. 1
The Payroll Officer
I found no public information on any payroll path: no named payroll system, no defined export format, no pre-payroll check, and nothing on variable pay, absences or mid-month joiners and leavers. An integrations marketplace is mentioned but nothing in it is named, so whatever leaves this system goes to be retyped. 1
The Works Council Advocate
A marketplace of unspecified apps and integrations is mentioned to reduce HR admin time, but we found no public information naming a payroll system, an export format, or handling of mid-month changes. From the captured evidence, whatever leaves this product would have to be retyped. 1
The Data Protection Officer
An integrations marketplace of unspecified apps is described as reducing HR admin time, but we found no public information naming a payroll system, an export format, or handling of mid-month joiners and leavers. The payroll handoff is left entirely to unnamed partners. 1
The IT Integrator
The site points to a marketplace of "a variety of apps and integrations", which is a partner page, not a documented payroll path: no named payroll system, no export format, no mention of variable pay or mid-month joiners and leavers. Without a format I can inspect, I assume whatever leaves this system gets re-typed. 1
The Skeptic
A marketplace of partner apps is said to exist to reduce HR admin, but the captured page names no payroll system, export format, or connector, and we found no public information on how the month hands over to payroll. A partnership listing is not a maintained integration. 1
Absence & working-time
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Vacation, sickness and working-time recording — including whether the product meets the German recording duty (BAG 2022, ArbZG) rather than merely offering a timer.
0 — No absence or time handling; both live in a spreadsheet elsewhere.
3 — Vacation requests with an approval step, but entitlement is manual, carry-over is not handled and there is no working-time recording.
5 — Automatic entitlement and carry-over, sickness recording, an absence calendar, and basic working-time capture with a report per employee.
8 — Configurable per country and contract: pro-rata entitlement, public-holiday calendars per location, break and rest-period rules, overtime accounts, and an export the employer can hand to a labour inspection.
10 — Working-time recording built as a legal obligation rather than a feature: tamper-evident records, documented compliance with the ArbZG recording duty, works-council-configurable monitoring limits, and shift or on-call models handled without add-ons.
The People Lead
Confirmed: time-off requests in seconds, single-click approvals, an overview of upcoming leave, and a free holiday-entitlement calculator as a standalone tool. We found no public information on automatic entitlement and carry-over inside the product, sickness recording, or working-time capture, and nothing addressing the German recording duty. 1
The Payroll Officer
Leave requests with a one-click approval response are stated, and a free holiday entitlement calculator is offered as a tool on the site; I found no public information on in-product automatic entitlement, carry-over or sickness recording. There is no working-time capture in evidence, and nothing addresses the German recording duty. 1
The Works Council Advocate
Leave requests with one-click approval and an overview of upcoming leave are evidenced, and the vendor points to a free external holiday calculator, which reads as entitlement being worked out outside the product. We found no public information on automatic entitlement and carry-over, sickness recording, or any working-time recording that would meet the German recording duty after the 2022 Federal Labour Court ruling. 1
The Data Protection Officer
Leave requests with single-click approval and an overview of upcoming leave are evidenced, alongside a free holiday entitlement calculator offered as a standalone tool; we found no public information on automatic entitlement, carry-over, sickness recording, or any working-time capture. Request-and-approve exists — the recording duty side is unevidenced. 1
The IT Integrator
Leave requests with single-click approval and an overview of upcoming leave are confirmed, which is a genuine request-and-approve flow; however, the only entitlement support we found is a free holiday-entitlement calculator offered on the site rather than evidenced in-product automation, and we found no public information on working-time recording or the German recording duty. 1
The Skeptic
Leave requests with one-click responses and an overview of upcoming leave are confirmed on the page, which sits at the basic end of this criterion. Holiday entitlement is offered as a free standalone calculator on the marketing site, and we found no public information on automatic entitlement and carry-over inside the product, on sickness recording, or on working-time recording with any reference to the German recording duty. 1
Recruiting & onboarding
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The join path — vacancy to signed contract to a person who has an account, equipment and a plan on day one.
0 — Neither applicant tracking nor onboarding exists; hiring happens in a shared inbox.
3 — A basic applicant list with statuses, or an onboarding checklist — one of the two, without the handover between them.
5 — Applicant tracking with a careers page, structured stages and rejection handling, plus a checklist-driven onboarding that carries the hired candidate over into an employee record without re-entry.
8 — Multi-posting to named job boards, interview scheduling and scorecards, GDPR-conscious applicant retention and deletion, e-signed contracts, and onboarding that triggers tasks in IT and payroll.
10 — The whole join is one governed flow: approval-gated requisitions with budget, structured and bias-conscious evaluation, automated applicant deletion at the stated deadline, and provisioning driven from the record so day one needs no HR intervention.
The People Lead
We found no public information on applicant tracking, careers pages, interview scheduling or onboarding checklists; the "40+ features" claim names none of the join path. Hiring would stay in the shared inbox. 1
The Payroll Officer
We found no public information on applicant tracking or onboarding; the join path from vacancy to signed contract to a day-one account is not evidenced on the captured page. 1
The Works Council Advocate
We found no public information on applicant tracking or onboarding; nothing in the captured pages evidences either half of the join path, let alone the handover between them. 1
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public information on applicant tracking, a careers page, structured stages, or onboarding of any kind. Neither half of the join path is evidenced on the captured pages. 1
The IT Integrator
We found no public information on applicant tracking, e-signed contracts, or any onboarding flow that carries a hire into an employee record. For my purposes the join path is unevidenced end to end: no documented API, no SCIM provisioning, no SSO, so I have no reason to believe onboarding creates anything but a checklist. 1
The Skeptic
We found no public information on applicant tracking, careers pages, structured stages, or onboarding checklists; the feature list on the captured page names none of the join path. 1
Employee data protection & co-determination
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How the product handles the most sensitive personal data a company holds — retention, deletion, role separation, subject rights — and whether it can pass a works council (BetrVG §87) rather than merely a procurement checklist.
0 — No stated retention or deletion handling, no role model beyond admin-or-not, and no DPA offered on the site.
3 — A DPA exists on request and roles are coarse; retention and deletion are described as something the customer arranges themselves.
5 — A signable DPA is published, roles are configurable per module, applicant and employee retention periods are stated, and deletion can be executed rather than only promised.
8 — Field-level access control with an audit log of who read what, configurable retention per data category with automatic deletion, documented subject-rights support, and monitoring or analytics features that can be switched off for co-determination.
10 — Built for the works council to say yes: published processing documentation and subprocessor list, per-entity data separation, tamper-evident audit trail, evaluation and behavioural-analysis features off by default with their scope documented, and a data-protection impact assessment the customer can build on.
The People Lead
We found no public information on retention periods, executable deletion, a published data-processing agreement, or a role model beyond self-service support. There is nothing here a works council or a data-protection officer could review. 1
The Payroll Officer
No data processing agreement is shown, and I found no public information on retention periods, executable deletion, configurable roles, an audit log, or works-council-relevant controls. The only governance-adjacent fact is a free trial without a credit card. 1
The Works Council Advocate
We found no public information on retention periods, deletion, a role model, an audit log of who read what, or a signable data-processing agreement. The one behavioural feature the page does show — engagement and wellbeing surveys on the Regular plan — comes with no documentation of what is logged, who can read responses, or whether the feature can be switched off, which are precisely the questions I must have answered under co-determination before any installation. 1
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public information on a signable data processing agreement, stated retention periods, deletion that executes rather than promises, configurable roles, an audit log, or a subprocessor list — and for the most sensitive personal data a company holds, about people who cannot decline the processing, an unpublished DPA is a finding in itself. 1
The IT Integrator
We found no public information on a data-processing agreement, retention or deletion periods, configurable roles, field-level access, or an audit log. There is nothing here a works council could evaluate, and nothing that shows subject-rights support exists. 1
The Skeptic
We found no public information on a data-processing agreement, stated retention periods, executable deletion, or configurable roles. Engagement and wellbeing surveys ship as a paid feature, and we found no public information on whether such analytics can be scoped or switched off for co-determination. 1
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where the data lives, who the contracting entity is, who the subprocessors are, and whether the answer is documented rather than assumed. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; scored here as the buyer would weigh it.
0 — US-headquartered vendor, US contracting entity, hosting region unstated or US, subprocessors not named.
3 — EU hosting is offered as an option but the contracting entity is non-EU, or the subprocessor list is incomplete or absent.
5 — EU hosting stated as standard and an EU contracting entity, but the subprocessor chain includes non-EU providers without an explained safeguard.
8 — EU or DACH hosting with a named data-centre provider, an EU contracting entity, the full subprocessor list published, and any non-EU processing named with its legal basis.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: vendor, contracting entity, hosting and every subprocessor in the EU, certification of the data centres published, and an on-premises or private-cloud option for buyers who need it.
The People Lead
A UK company with a UK address in Horsham is the whole of the location evidence; no sovereignty attributes are on record, and we found no public information on hosting region, data-centre provider or subprocessors. For a buyer who needs an evidenced European chain, this gives me nothing to sign. 1
The Payroll Officer
The only location on record is a United Kingdom office address; I found no public information on the hosting region, the contracting entity or any named subprocessors. For a buyer needing EU or DACH processing with a documented safeguard, nothing here establishes it. 1
The Works Council Advocate
The only location evidence is a Horsham, United Kingdom address; no hosting region, contracting entity or subprocessor list is published and no sovereignty attributes are on record. A non-EU vendor with an entirely unnamed subprocessor chain is not a chain a works council or data-protection officer can assess. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The only location evidence is a United Kingdom office address; we found no public information on hosting region, contracting entity, or any subprocessor. A buyer cannot verify from public pages where employee data lives or who processes it. 1
The IT Integrator
The vendor is UK-based — a Horsham address, part of Zellis Group, marketing to 17,000+ UK SMEs — so the contracting entity sits outside the EU, though UK adequacy keeps it off the floor. We found no public information on where data is hosted, the subprocessor list, or data-centre certification. 1
The Skeptic
The vendor address is Horsham, United Kingdom — outside the EU from the buyer's vantage — and we found no public information on hosting region, a subcontractor list, or data-centre certification. That is a third-country vendor with an undocumented processing chain. 1
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether an HR lead can compute the real annual invoice for their headcount — including the modules they actually need — from public pages alone.
0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.
3 — An entry price per employee exists, but the modules most buyers need are unpriced, or a minimum headcount, setup fee or mandatory onboarding package is not stated publicly.
5 — Per-employee prices are public for the main tiers with the billing period stated, but at least one commonly needed module (payroll, time, recruiting) hides in an unpriced bundle.
8 — Every tier and module priced publicly with per-employee maths, billing period, minimum term and VAT treatment stated; only genuinely custom enterprise work lacks a number.
10 — Complete price computability: a calculator or table that produces the annual invoice for a given headcount and module selection, including setup, minimums and renewal terms.
The People Lead
Published: a free trial with no credit card required and "flexible, subscription-based plans" you can cancel anytime. We found no public information on per-employee prices, tier contents, minimums, setup fees or billing periods, so not one line of the annual invoice can be computed from the public pages. 1
The Payroll Officer
We found no public price figures at all — the page states a free trial without credit card and subscription plans cancellable anytime, but no per-employee prices, billing amounts or module costs. An HR lead cannot compute the annual invoice from this. 1
The Works Council Advocate
A free trial without credit card and cancel-anytime subscription terms with a no-hidden-costs statement are published, but no tier price, per-employee figure, billing period, minimum or setup fee appears — a Regular plan is named without a number. An HR lead cannot compute an annual invoice from the captured page. 1
The Data Protection Officer
A free trial without credit card and a promise of flexible, cancellable subscription plans are stated, but we found no public information on per-employee prices for any tier or module, or on minimums and setup fees. The real annual invoice is not computable from public pages. 1
The IT Integrator
A free trial with no credit card required and cancel-anytime subscription terms are public, but we found no public per-employee price, tier breakdown, setup fee, minimum, or VAT treatment. An HR lead cannot compute an annual invoice from what is shown, and "40+ features" in unpriced bundles is the part that worries me. 1
The Skeptic
A free trial without credit card and a cancellable subscription are the only commercial facts published; we found no public information on per-employee prices, plan tiers, billing period, minimum headcount, or setup fees. No annual invoice for any headcount can be computed from what is captured. 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 ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 22 Sep 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, 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.
- 10 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
- 9 legal facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 4 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
- 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
- 1 data 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 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 subprocessors 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 support 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
- 3 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (8)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.breathehr.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Privacy policy — found from the homepage www.breathehr.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Security / trust page — found from the homepage www.breathehr.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Payroll handoff — found from sitemap www.breathehr.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Payroll handoff — found from sitemap www.breathehr.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Absence & working-time — found from sitemap www.breathehr.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Absence & working-time — found from sitemap www.breathehr.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Recruiting & onboarding — found from sitemap www.breathehr.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →