HR Management
CharlieHR
Provenance unknown Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 1 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by CharlieHR Ltd · www.charliehr.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
CharlieHR, an HR management product from CharlieHR Ltd that the vendor says serves over 3,000 small businesses, covers onboarding, time off, engagement, reviews, perks, docs & employee data, and integrations. It is strongest where the pages are concrete: core HR records and recruiting and onboarding each score 3, on a team database storing all docs and contracts in one place and one-click onboarding that collects new-hire info and signs contracts in seconds; time and absence sits at 2-3 on automated time-off admin, the lone 2 coming from the works-council judge over Germany's working-time recording duty since the 2022 labour court ruling. It is weakest at the month-end and the file: payroll readiness scores 0-1, with no public information on a named payroll system, export format or month-end handoff; employee data governance scores 1-2, with no public information on a signable DPA, retention periods or audit log beyond a self-stated GDPR and ISO 27001 claim; sovereignty scores 0-1, with no sovereignty attributes on record. The only pricing statement is perks "free with your Charlie subscription".
Speaks for it
- Core HR records score 3 on a team database with all docs and contracts stored in one place
- Recruiting and onboarding scores 3 with one-click onboarding that collects new-hire info and signs contracts in seconds
- Time and absence scores 2-3 on automated time-off administration that replaces manual spreadsheets
- Support runs by phone, email or live chat with a stated average response time of 7 minutes
Held against it
- Payroll readiness scores 0-1, with no public information on a named payroll system, export format or month-end handoff
- Sovereignty scores 0-1: no sovereignty attributes on record, and no public information on hosting region, contracting entity or subprocessors
- Employee data governance scores 1-2, with no public information on a signable DPA, retention periods, role model or audit log beyond a self-stated GDPR and ISO 27001 claim
- No public information on working-time capture, cited by the works-council judge as a legal duty in Germany since the 2022 labour court ruling
- Pricing transparency scores 0-1, the only statement being perks "free with your Charlie subscription" with no public information on the subscription price
Best for
- You need a simple team database for docs and contracts plus one-click onboarding with contract signing
- You want automated time-off request and approval admin to replace manual spreadsheets
- Your payroll runs in a separate system and a documented export path from your HR tool is not a requirement
- You value human HR support by phone, email or live chat with a stated 7-minute average response
Avoid if
- You need an evidenced payroll handoff — payroll readiness scores 0-1 with no public information on a named payroll system or export format
- You must verify hosting region, contracting entity or subprocessors before signing — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You need a works-council-ready governance package — employee data governance scores 1-2 with no public information on a DPA, retention periods or audit log
- You are a German employer bound by the working-time recording duty the works-council judge cites from the 2022 labour court ruling
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
The captured pages show a 'Docs & employee data' module and a 'team database' with 'all your docs and contracts stored in one place', which is document upload and an employee record, but we found no public information on an org chart, custom fields, or dated history of contract and salary changes. For replacing a shared drive that is a flat file rather than a system of record. 1
The Payroll Officer
Docs and contracts are said to be stored in one place, and onboarding talks about signing contracts in seconds, but we found no public information on an org chart, custom fields, or any dated history of contract or salary changes. As a record it holds today's state; nothing published says a backdated change leaves a trail I could hand a tax adviser. 1
The Works Council Advocate
The captured pages show documents, contracts and employee data stored together in one place, which is more than a contact list. We found no public information on an org chart, custom fields, field-level permissions, or a dated history of contract and salary changes — a personnel file whose history I cannot see is not one I would co-sign. 1
The Data Protection Officer
A team database storing docs and contracts in one place is evidenced, with one-click collection of new starter information and contract signing during onboarding. We found no public information on org structure, custom fields, dated change history on employment or salary changes, or field-level permissions, so what is visible is a document store around the employee record rather than a personnel file with history. 1
The IT Integrator
Employee records with documents and contracts stored in one place are the headline, but we found no public information on an org chart, custom fields, or dated history of contract and salary changes — document storage rather than a structured personnel file. 1
The Skeptic
Document storage is concretely evidenced — a team database with "all your docs and contracts stored in one place" under Docs & employee data — but we found no public information on org structure, custom fields, or dated history of contract or salary changes. Document upload with an entirely unevidenced data model is the mid-low anchor, not the middle one. 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
The module list names Onboarding, Time off, Engagement, Reviews, Perks, Docs & employee data and Integrations, and the only nod toward payroll is 'Easily integrate with the rest of your HR tech stack' — we found no public information on a named payroll system, a defined export format, or how mid-month joiners and leavers would be handled. I cannot close a month on a generic promise. 1
The Payroll Officer
The month has no stated exit: we found no named payroll system, no export format, and no handling of mid-month joiners, leavers or variable pay — only a generic claim of integrating with the rest of the HR tech stack. Unnamed integrations and an advisory add-on are not a payroll path; by what's published, everything leaves through somebody retyping. 1
The Works Council Advocate
No payroll destination is named anywhere in the captured material; the only integration statement is a generic line about connecting to the rest of the HR stack. For a council whose payroll runs on DATEV or Lohn und Gehalt, we found no public information on any export format, variable pay, or mid-month joiners and leavers, so there is nothing here to hand over cleanly. 1
The Data Protection Officer
An integrations module is described generically as connecting to the rest of the HR tech stack, but we found no public information naming any payroll system, export format, or handling of mid-month joiners and leavers. From a data-protection standpoint I cannot see how the employee record closes into payroll at all, which earns a small credit only for the stated integration capability. 1
The IT Integrator
The published modules run time off, onboarding, reviews, perks and document storage, and we found no public information on any payroll integration, export format, or month-end handoff — nothing here that a payroll system or tax adviser could receive. 1
The Skeptic
We found no public information on any payroll handoff — no named payroll system, no export format, not even a generic CSV claim; the only integration statement is "Easily integrate with the rest of your HR tech stack," which names nothing and commits to nothing. Whatever closes the month into payroll is invisible from the captured pages. 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
'Automated time off: no more manual spreadsheets' and a Time off module give me vacation automation, but we found no public information on entitlement calculation, carry-over, sickness recording, an absence calendar, or any working-time capture, let alone the German recording duty. This reads as request-and-approve territory, not a compliance feature. 1
The Payroll Officer
Automated time off is claimed — no more manual spreadsheets — which reads as requests and approvals, but we found no public information on entitlement calculation, carry-over, sickness recording, or any working-time capture. Absence admin exists on the page; working time as a duty is never mentioned. 1
The Works Council Advocate
Automated time-off admin and the end of manual spreadsheets is advertised, but the pages stop there: we found no public information on entitlement calculation, carry-over, sickness, or holiday calendars. Above all, we found no public information on working-time recording at all, which since the 2022 labour court ruling is a legal duty in Germany, not an optional module — that alone rules the product out for us as evidenced. 1
The Data Protection Officer
Automated time off handling that replaces manual spreadsheets is claimed, but we found no public information on entitlement calculation, carry-over, sickness recording, or any working-time capture — and the German recording duty is precisely what I look for. Vacation administration alone, with no evidenced time recording and no compliance statement, sits at the low end. 1
The IT Integrator
Automated time off admin is promised as the end of manual spreadsheets, but we found no public information on entitlement calculation, carry-over, sickness recording or any working-time capture, so nothing addresses the German recording duty. 1
The Skeptic
Time off is evidenced — "Automated time off: no more manual spreadsheets" — but we found no public information on entitlement calculation, carry-over, sickness recording, or any working-time capture. For a German buyer the decisive question is the ArbZG recording duty, and nothing on the captured pages addresses it. 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
'One-click onboarding: collect new hire info and sign contracts in seconds' is genuine onboarding evidence including contract signing, but we found no public information on applicant tracking, a careers page, or rejection handling. Half the join path exists, with nothing visible feeding into it. 1
The Payroll Officer
One-click onboarding collects new-starter info and signs contracts in seconds, but we found no public information on applicant tracking, a careers page, structured stages or rejection handling. The join path published starts at the offer, not at the vacancy. 1
The Works Council Advocate
One-click onboarding that collects new-starter information and signs contracts in seconds is evidenced, and that is the entire join path on these pages. We found no public information on applicant tracking, a careers page, structured stages, or candidate retention and deletion — the hiring itself appears to happen outside the product, with no handover into onboarding. 1
The Data Protection Officer
Onboarding is real and evidenced: collecting new hire information with one click and signing contracts in seconds. We found no public information on applicant tracking, careers pages, structured stages, or — the part I weigh most — applicant retention periods and deletion that executes on a stated date, so only half of the join path is visible. 1
The IT Integrator
One-click onboarding collects new starter info and signs contracts in seconds, which is the onboarding half of the join path; we found no public information on applicant tracking, and — the measure I judge a join path by — none on onboarding triggering an IT account or provisioning, nor any documented API access behind the integrations module. 1
The Skeptic
Onboarding is specific and real — "collect new hire info and sign contracts in seconds" — but that is half the join path; we found no public information on applicant tracking, careers pages, structured stages, or vacancy handling. A one-sided onboarding with an unevidenced hiring front end sits at the lower-middle. 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
'Fully GDPR-compliant and ISO 27001-certified' is a certification statement I can note, but we found no public information on a signable data-processing agreement, configurable roles, stated retention periods for applicants or employees, executable deletion, or an audit log of who read what. A works council will want considerably more than a badge. 1
The Payroll Officer
GDPR compliance and ISO 27001 certification are claimed, which is a posture, but we found no published DPA, no retention periods, no role model, no audit log and no deletion handling. A works council reviewing this would be reviewing marketing copy, not processing documentation. 1
The Works Council Advocate
A self-stated GDPR compliance and ISO 27001 certification is the full extent of what is published. We found no public information on a signable data-processing agreement, role separation, stated retention periods, executable deletion, or an audit log of who read what — and the engagement and performance-review features are exactly the behavioural measurement a council must scope under co-determination, with nothing published on limiting or switching them off. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pages state the product is GDPR-compliant and ISO 27001-certified, which is a certification claim rather than evidenced governance capability: we found no published data processing agreement, no subprocessor list, no stated retention or deletion periods, no role model, and no audit logging. For data about people who cannot decline the processing, an unpublished DPA is itself a finding, and nothing here shows deletion that executes rather than promises. 1
The IT Integrator
GDPR compliance and ISO 27001 certification are claimed, but we found no public information on a signable data-processing agreement, configurable roles, stated retention periods or deletion that can actually be executed — nothing here would carry a works-council conversation. 1
The Skeptic
The only data-protection statements are self-assertions — "fully GDPR-compliant and ISO 27001-certified" — while we found no public information on a signable data-processing agreement, stated retention or deletion periods, role separation, or any audit log. A works council reviewing this has nothing concrete to review. 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
The vendor is CharlieHR Ltd, a UK company, and we found no public information on hosting region, an EU contracting entity, or a published subprocessor list. For a European buyer this is undocumented rather than European. 1
The Payroll Officer
No sovereignty attributes are on record: the captured pages give nothing on hosting region, contracting entity or subprocessors. A GDPR-compliance claim is not a data location — I found no public information on where the data lives or who touches it. 1
The Works Council Advocate
No hosting region, contracting entity beyond the company name, or subprocessor list appears in the captured material. I cannot even establish which jurisdiction the personnel data sits in, and a vendor that cannot answer that in writing gets nothing from me regardless of the product. 1
The Data Protection Officer
No sovereignty attributes are on record: we found no public information on hosting region, contracting entity location, data-centre provider, or a single named subprocessor. The sovereignty answer is undocumented rather than merely partial, and a buyer with EU residency requirements has nothing to assess. 1
The IT Integrator
We found no public information on hosting location, the contracting entity's jurisdiction or any subprocessor — a general GDPR-compliance claim is the only European signal — so a buyer cannot verify where their most sensitive data sits. 1
The Skeptic
The record carries no sovereignty attributes at all: we found no public information on hosting region, contracting entity, data-centre provider, or a single named subprocessor. A GDPR-compliance claim is not a hosting statement, and nothing on the captured pages lets a buyer place their data. 1
Pricing transparency
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
The only price statement captured is perks being 'free with your Charlie subscription'; we found no public information on per-employee prices, tiers, billing period, minimum headcount or VAT treatment. I cannot compute an annual invoice from a single free-of-charge claim. 1
The Payroll Officer
The only pricing statement on the captured page is that perks are free with your subscription, with no subscription price, per-employee rate, billing period, tier, minimum or VAT treatment published anywhere I can see. No HR lead could compute an annual invoice for their headcount from this; the numbers are a sales conversation. 1
The Works Council Advocate
The only pricing statement captured is that perks are free with your subscription, with no price published for the subscription itself. We found no public per-employee price, tier structure, billing period, or setup terms, so no HR lead could compute an annual invoice from these pages. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The only pricing statement captured is that perks are "free with your Charlie subscription"; we found no public prices for any tier or module, no per-employee figure, and no billing period or terms. An HR lead cannot compute any annual invoice from these pages. 1
The IT Integrator
No price figure appears on the captured pages; the closest statements are that perks are free with your Charlie subscription and that the advisor package is an add-on without a number, so an HR lead cannot compute any part of the annual invoice. 1
The Skeptic
No price appears anywhere on the captured pages — not per employee, not per tier, not a currency — and the closest statement, "No hidden fees: free with your Charlie subscription," presupposes a subscription whose own price is unstated. An HR lead cannot compute any invoice from this. 1
European sovereignty — proven facts
1 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 | Incorporated in GB | 1/3 pts | 4 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 29 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. 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.
- 22 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
- 22 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
- 21 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
- 20 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
- 7 subprocessors facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 data 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 integrations 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
- 2 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (14)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.charliehr.com Checked 29 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Terms of service — found from the homepage www.charliehr.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy — found from the homepage www.charliehr.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Security / trust page — found from the homepage www.charliehr.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Digital personnel file & data model — found from sitemap www.charliehr.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Digital personnel file & data model — found from sitemap www.charliehr.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Payroll handoff — found from sitemap help.charliehr.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Payroll handoff — found from sitemap help.charliehr.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Absence & working-time — found from sitemap www.charliehr.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Absence & working-time — found from sitemap help.charliehr.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Recruiting & onboarding — found from sitemap www.charliehr.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Recruiting & onboarding — found from sitemap www.charliehr.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Employee data protection & co-determination — found from sitemap help.charliehr.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 Employee data protection & co-determination — found from sitemap help.charliehr.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →