HR Management
Ciphr
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Ciphr Group · www.ciphr.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.
Ciphr at a glance
- Vendor
- Ciphr Group
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Default not stated; pages mention United Kingdom and the EU source, captured 20 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Ciphr 2.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Ciphr is a UK-built HR management suite from Ciphr Limited of Reading, aimed at UK mid-sized organisations of 200 to 2,000 employees. 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
Ciphr is a UK-built HR management suite from Ciphr Limited of Reading, aimed at UK mid-sized organisations of 200 to 2,000 employees. Its strength is payroll readiness, scoring 7-8: Ciphr Payroll syncs from HR in real time without re-keying, payroll controls pause and resume with a full audit trail, and the offering is RTI compliant and HMRC recognised, carries a CIPP award, and offers Ciphr Paylink for third-party payroll. Employee data governance follows at 6-7, on configurable retention that automatically anonymises or deletes leavers, self-service subject access requests, and a named data protection officer with ISO 27001. The weak end is flat: pricing transparency scores 3 with no spread — one public figure, HR from £5 per employee per month, minimum contract terms and user numbers referenced but not quantified, and no public price for the payroll, recruitment or learning modules. Time and absence sits at 4 with no working-time recording shown; sovereignty at 3-4 reflects a UK contracting entity with UK and EEA hosting rather than contested evidence. Scores never spread more than a point on any criterion.
Speaks for it
- Real-time HR-to-payroll sync with no re-keying, payroll-controlled pause and resume, and a full audit trail
- RTI compliance, HMRC recognition and a CIPP Software Product of the Year 2025 award behind the payroll
- Configurable retention of 30, 60, 90 days or longer automatically flags leavers for anonymisation or deletion from one dashboard
- Subject access requests fulfilled through employee self-service without a manual trawl
- Onboarding runs from contract generation and right-to-work checks to payroll set-up and learning assignment, fed by recruitment data that flows into the HR record on offer acceptance
Held against it
- One public price only — HR from £5 per employee per month — with minimum contract terms and minimum user numbers referenced but not quantified, and no public price for payroll, recruitment or learning
- We found no public information on an org chart, custom fields, or dated contract and salary history in the core record
- We found no public information on working-time recording, carry-over or overtime handling; the time-related features shown are UK absence constructs
- The contracting entity is Ciphr Limited of Reading, a UK company, under UK GDPR and Data Protection Act framing, and the captured pages show no subprocessor list or named data-centre provider
- Permissions are described at role level, with no public information on field-level access, a log of who read which record, or switching monitoring features such as flight-risk scoring off
Best for
- You run UK payroll cycles and want approved absence, onboarding and HR changes to reach the pay run without re-keying
- You are a UK organisation of 200 to 2,000 employees that needs automatic retention, anonymisation and deletion of leaver and applicant records from one dashboard
- You need a join path where recruitment data flows into the HR record on offer acceptance and payroll is set up before day one
Avoid if
- You need an EU contracting entity — Ciphr Limited is a UK company and the compliance framing is UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act
- You must compute an annual invoice from published prices — only the HR from-price is public, and the route to more is a brochure download or demo request
- You must evidence statutory working-time recording — the captured pages show UK-framed absence management and no hours capture
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Digital personnel file & data model | 2 of 5 |
| Payroll handoff | 3.5 of 5 |
| Absence & working-time | 2 of 5 |
| Recruiting & onboarding | 2.5 of 5 |
| Employee data protection & co-determination | 3 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1.5 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 1.5 of 5 |
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 employee records with document upload, absence and performance in one cloud system, generic audit reporting and change tracking, and role-restricted access. We found no public information on an org chart, custom fields, or dated contract and salary history — without versioned history the file cannot yet replace my eleven spreadsheets as the single record. 1 4 5 8
The Payroll Officer
Employee records carry document attachment and change tracking, and leaver records are flagged and anonymised automatically — that is a personnel file, not a contact list. But the captured pages give me no org chart, no custom fields and no effective-dated contract or salary history, which is exactly the history I would want in place before trusting a backdated change to land correctly. 1 4 5 8
The Works Council Advocate
Central employee records with document attachment and change tracking are evidenced, and contract generation exists on the join path. But we found no public information on an org chart, custom fields, or dated contract and salary history, so this sits below a complete digital personnel file. 1 4 5 6
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pages show employee records with documents attached to them, absence, performance and self-service in one central record, and change tracking — more than a flat contact list. We found no public information on an org chart, custom fields, or dated contract and salary history, so I cannot evidence the file beyond a structured record with document storage and some change visibility. 1 4 5 7
The IT Integrator
The record exists with document attachment, change tracking and role-based access, and the API-led, real-time synchronisation means I could point downstream systems at one source of truth. But we found no public information on org structure, custom fields, or effective-dated contract and salary history, which is what a personnel file needs before I trust it as the master. 1 4 5 8
The Skeptic
The personnel file itself is real — documents attach to the record, starters upload their own paperwork, access is restricted by role, and change tracking is claimed. But we found no public information on an org chart, custom fields, or dated contract and salary history, and for a vendor chasing 200–2,000-employee organisations that silence about the data model is the part I read twice. 1 4 5 7 8
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 month can close here: approved absence flows into Ciphr Payroll without re-entry, individual adjustments reflect on payslips immediately, payroll can pause and resume synchronisation with a full audit trail, and third-party payroll is supported through Ciphr Paylink with RTI compliance and HMRC recognition. We found no public information on a documented pre-payroll check or retro-accounting for backdated changes, and no third-party payroll vendors are named — for me that is the difference between strong and complete. 1 3 4 5 6
The Payroll Officer
The month looks closable: HR changes sync to Ciphr Payroll in real time with no re-keying, approved absences flow straight through, individual adjustments hit payslips immediately, and payroll can pause and resume the sync with a full audit trail — backed by RTI/HMRC recognition and a CIPP award. The third-party path is thinner in public evidence: Ciphr Paylink is described, but no third-party payroll system is actually named, and we found no public information on a documented pre-payroll check, on retro-accounting for backdated changes, or on separate access for a payroll adviser. 1 3 4 5 6
The Works Council Advocate
The vendor's own payroll is a named, native product with real-time sync, approved absences flowing through without re-keying, pause and resume control and a full audit trail — the kind of lock-step transparency I want to see before transmission. The captured pages name no third-party payroll system, and we found no public information on a documented pre-payroll check or retro-accounting. 1 3 4 5 6
The Data Protection Officer
The month closes without re-typing: approved absence flows through to Ciphr Payroll automatically, the payroll offering is RTI compliant and HMRC recognised, and payroll can pause and resume the synchronisation with an audit trail behind it. Ciphr Paylink is described as connecting to the customer's chosen payroll partner, and we found no public information naming those third-party systems or documenting a pre-payroll check, which keeps this short of the top band. 1 3 4 5
The IT Integrator
Payroll is a first-class part of the suite, not a spreadsheet handoff: real-time HR-to-payroll sync with no re-keying, sync that payroll can pause and resume with a full audit trail, adjustments showing on payslips immediately, and approved absence plus onboarding data flowing straight into the pay run, with RTI compliance and HMRC recognition behind it and a connector offered for third-party payroll vendors. We found no public information naming any of those third-party systems, on retro-accounting, or on giving an external adviser their own access. 1 3 4 5 6
The Skeptic
Payroll is the one place this vendor sells a product rather than a promise: their own payroll system syncs from HR in real time without re-keying, approved absences flow through automatically, the sync can be paused under payroll's control with an audit trail, and HMRC recognition plus a CIPP award cover the credibility angle. Third-party payroll runs through their Paylink connector, with no third-party vendor named in the captures and new integrations only built "on request" — a buyer should ask which connectors are maintained and which are hoped for. We found no public information on retro-accounting for backdated changes or separate access for an external payroll adviser, which is what keeps this short of the top. 1 3 4 5 6
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
Absence is genuinely deep — automatic holiday entitlement and UK statutory sick pay as standard, sickness recording with doctor's notes attached, configurable approvals, the Bradford Factor calculated automatically, and reporting by team, department or organisation. We found no public information on working-time recording, carry-over handling, or anything addressing the German recording duty; every time-related claim on these pages is framed around UK rules, so time capture stays in a spreadsheet. 5
The Payroll Officer
Absence is real and included as standard: leave, sickness and other absence logged from any device with configurable approvals, automatic UK statutory sick pay and holiday entitlement handling, automatic Bradford Factor scoring with alerts, and paid and unpaid reporting by team, department or organisation. We found no public information on working-time recording, on carry-over, or on per-location holiday calendars, so nothing published evidences statutory working-time capture. 5
The Works Council Advocate
Absence is handled seriously: automatic holiday entitlement and UK statutory sick pay, sickness recording with doctor's notes attached to the record, configurable approvals and reporting by team. We found no public information on working-time recording, which the German recording duty makes my first question. And the automatic Bradford Factor threshold alerts plus AI flight-risk scoring that cross-references absence and performance are behavioural analysis a works council must examine, with no public information on switching them off or limiting their scope. 1 5 8
The Data Protection Officer
Sickness and annual leave are recorded from any device with configurable approvals, and holiday entitlement and statutory sick pay are handled as standard rather than worked around, with Bradford Factor scoring calculated automatically. We found no public information on working-time recording, carry-over handling or overtime accounts, so absence management is evidenced but time capture is not. 1 5
The IT Integrator
Absence is standard and real: annual leave, sickness and other absence logged from any device, configurable approvals, automatic UK holiday entitlement and statutory sick pay handling, automatic Bradford Factor with alerting, and paid and unpaid reporting by team, department or organisation. We found no public information on working-time capture, carry-over handling, or anything addressing a statutory recording duty, so the time half of this criterion rests on nothing I can see. 5
The Skeptic
Absence is genuinely built in as standard: leave, sickness and other absence logging with approvals, automatic Bradford Factor with alerting, statutory sick pay and holiday entitlement handled as UK constructs, and reporting by team and department. Working-time recording is the gap — we found no public information on any hours capture, break or overtime handling, and the absence half of this criterion is only half the duty. I score what the pages show, not what a module list implies. 1 5
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
The join path connects as I need it: when a candidate accepts, recruitment data flows into the HR record with no re-keying, and onboarding triggers contract generation, right-to-work checks, payroll set-up, policy acknowledgement and learning assignment, with blind recruitment and automatic retention flags on applicants. We found no public information on careers pages, structured stages, rejection handling, multi-posting or interview scheduling, so the front half of the funnel is undocumented. 6 7 8
The Payroll Officer
The handover is the strong part: on offer acceptance recruitment data flows directly into the HR record with no re-keying, and onboarding generates contracts, verifies right to work, sets up payroll and assigns learning — payroll set-up driven from the record is exactly what I want before day one. Beyond blind recruitment and automatic retention flags on applicant records we found no public information on a careers page, structured stages, rejection handling, interview scheduling or scorecards, nor on contract e-signature. 6 7 8
The Works Council Advocate
The handover is real: recruitment data flows into the HR record on offer acceptance with no re-keying, onboarding triggers contract generation, right-to-work checks, payroll set-up and learning assignment, and blind recruitment with automatic applicant retention flags is stated. We found no public information on a careers page, structured stages and rejection handling, interview scheduling or scorecards, or e-signed contracts. 6 7 8
The Data Protection Officer
The join path is real: recruitment data flows into the HR record on offer acceptance with no re-keying, onboarding covers contract generation, right-to-work checks and payroll set-up, and applicant records carry automatic retention flags. I want applicant data that deletes itself on the stated date, and flags are a step short of that; we also found no public information on a careers page, structured stages, interview scheduling or e-signed contracts. 6 7 8
The IT Integrator
The join path does the one thing I insist on: when a candidate accepts, recruitment data flows into the HR record with no re-keying, and onboarding triggers contract generation, right-to-work checks, payroll set-up and learning assignment. But we found no public information on IT account provisioning or single sign-on on day one, on careers-page stages and rejection handling, or on e-signed contracts — the visible applicant story is blind recruitment and automatic retention flags, and much of the onboarding story is a free checklist template. 6 7 8
The Skeptic
The handover is the strong part: recruitment data flows into the HR record on offer acceptance with no re-keying, and onboarding tasks cover contract generation, right-to-work checks, payroll set-up and learning assignment. We found no public information on the recruiting side's substance — careers pages, structured stages, rejection handling, multi-posting, interview scorecards — and we found no public information on e-signatures either, only "contract generation". A good join, an unproven funnel. 6 7 8
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
Retention is executed rather than promised — configurable periods with leavers anonymised or deleted automatically from one dashboard — and subject access requests run through self-service, backed by a dedicated data protection officer, a Trust Centre, ISO 27001 and documented AI governance with no training on employee data. We found no public information on a published signable data processing agreement, an audit log of who read what, or analytics that can be switched off for a works council. 2 4 8
The Payroll Officer
Retention is configurable and executable — set 30, 60 or 90 days or longer and leavers are flagged for anonymisation or deletion automatically, from a dashboard that also downloads data and extends retention — subject access requests are fulfilled without a manual trawl, roles restrict sensitive records, and a dedicated DPO, ISO 27001 and a public Trust Centre are documented. We found no public information on field-level permissions, on a log of who read which record, or on published processing documentation with a subprocessor list, so I cannot confirm it would satisfy a works council review. 2 4 8
The Works Council Advocate
Configurable retention with automatic anonymisation or deletion from one dashboard, subject-access fulfilment through self-service, AI documentation with human-review notes, and a statement that AI does not train on employee data are answers a works council wants on paper. We found no public information on a published signable data processing agreement, on an audit log of who read which record — change tracking is evidenced, read access is not — or, decisively, on whether the monitoring and analytics features can be switched off or limited for co-determination. 1 2 4 5 8
The Data Protection Officer
Retention here executes rather than promises: leavers are flagged for automatic anonymisation or deletion at a configured period, one dashboard can download, anonymise or delete records, consent expiries are flagged, and subject access requests are served through self-service. Against that, we found no public information on a signable data processing agreement or a published subprocessor list, none on field-level access with a log of who read what, and none on whether monitoring features such as the flight-risk cross-referencing sit off by default — for data this sensitive, the missing agreement and subprocessor chain are findings I record. 1 2 8
The IT Integrator
Retention here is executed rather than promised: a period you set once drives automatic anonymisation or deletion from one dashboard, applicant records carry automatic retention flags, subject access requests are served through self-service without a manual trawl, and there is a named DPO and a Trust Centre aimed at DPOs and IT teams. We found no public information on field-level permissions, an audit log of who read what, or monitoring and analytics that can be switched off for co-determination — role-based access is not field-level, and that is what a works council will ask me. 2 4 8
The Skeptic
This is where the vendor earns trust: a named data protection officer, retention set once with automatic anonymisation or deletion of leavers from one dashboard, automatic retention flags on applicants, subject access requests fulfilled through self-service, and penetration testing by CREST-accredited outsiders. But permissions are described at role level rather than field level, an audit of who read whose data is only implied by general change tracking, and we found no public information on a signable data processing agreement or a published subprocessor list. Monitoring features like Bradford Factor alerting come with no story about switching analytics off for a works council. 2 4 8
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
UK and EEA data centres are stated for HR and payroll data, and the contracting entity is identifiable as Ciphr Limited, registered in Reading with a UK VAT number — but a UK entity is a non-EU contracting party. We found no public information on a published subprocessor list, ownership, or safeguards for any non-EU processing. 5 7
The Payroll Officer
The contracting entity is Ciphr Limited, registered office in Reading, UK, and the vendor states that data including absence records is held in UK and EEA data centres — but for a European buyer that UK entity is a non-EU contracting party, and we found no public information on the data-centre provider or any subprocessor list. Hosting is at least stated outright rather than left silent, though nothing published lets a buyer trace the full chain. 5 7
The Works Council Advocate
Hosting in UK and EEA data centres is stated and the contracting entity is Ciphr Limited of Reading, a UK company, with the whole compliance story built around UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act. We found no public information on subprocessors, on the data-centre provider, or on safeguards for any processing outside the EEA. 2 5 6 8
The Data Protection Officer
Ciphr Limited is a UK contracting entity and the captured pages state that HR and payroll data is held in UK and EEA data centres, which for a European buyer means a third-country contract with partially European hosting. We found no public information on subprocessors, the named data-centre provider, or any safeguard for processing outside the EEA, so the chain remains undocumented. 5 7
The IT Integrator
The contracting entity is Ciphr Limited, a UK company with a Reading registered office, and hosting is at least stated — HR and payroll data held in UK and EEA data centres — but the whole compliance framing is UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act. The data-centre provider is not named, and we found no public information on subprocessors, so a buyer on the continent cannot document the processing chain from the public pages. 5 7 8
The Skeptic
Ciphr is unambiguously UK: Ciphr Limited in Reading as the contracting entity, data held in UK and EEA data centres, UK GDPR framing throughout — coherent, but for a buyer weighing European sovereignty the contracting entity sits outside the EU. The captured pages name no data-centre provider and we found no public information on a subprocessor list; the published certifications are a start, not a chain. A clear answer, in the wrong jurisdiction for the question being asked. 2 5 8
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
A public from-price of £5 per employee per month exists for HR, with minimum contract terms and minimum user numbers said to apply but not detailed in the captured pages. We found no public information on prices for payroll, recruitment, learning or benefits, nor any setup fee for the seven-week implementation, so I cannot compute my annual invoice for 400 people from public pages alone. 5 6 8
The Payroll Officer
An entry price is public: "HR software from £5 per user per month (minimum user numbers apply – see example pricing)" and "Pricing for Ciphr HR starts from £5 per employee per month; minimum contract terms apply". Payroll, recruitment, learning and benefits carry no public price in the captured pages, and the minimum contract terms, the minimum user numbers and any setup fee are not quantified — I could not compute an annual invoice for a given headcount from what is published. 1 5 6
The Works Council Advocate
One figure is public — from £5 per employee per month — with minimum contract terms and minimum user numbers referenced but not stated, and we found no public price for payroll, recruitment, onboarding or learning, or for the implementation work. An HR lead cannot compute the annual invoice from these pages. 1 5 6
The Data Protection Officer
An entry price is public — HR software from £5 per employee per month, with minimum contract terms applying and minimum user numbers flagged without figures — but the payroll, recruitment and learning modules the suite is sold on carry no public price. We found no public information on setup fees, VAT treatment, or the example pricing the pages point buyers toward. 1 5 6
The IT Integrator
One from-price is public — £5 per employee per month, with minimum contract terms applying and minimum user numbers mentioned but not quantified in the captured pages — and the go-live timeline is stated at as little as seven weeks. But none of the modules a 200-to-2,000-person deployment actually needs — payroll, recruitment, onboarding, learning — carries a public price, and the homepage routes straight to a brochure download or a demo request. 1 5 6 8
The Skeptic
One number exists — HR from £5 per employee per month, with minimum contract terms and minimum user numbers both flagged but not quantified, and a pointer to "example pricing" whose figures the captures do not show. For everything a real invoice needs — payroll, recruitment, learning, benefits, setup fees — we found no public figures, and the homepage route to a price is a brochure download and a demo. An HR lead cannot compute an annual invoice for their headcount from these pages. 1 5 6
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Ciphr
Is Ciphr European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Ciphr is based.
Where does Ciphr store data?
The default storage location for customer data is not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026. The vendor’s pages mention United Kingdom and the EU as hosting locations, per the vendor’s page captured 20 Oct 2026.
Does Ciphr have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Ciphr?
As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates rexx systems (3.5/5), HRworks (3/5) and Kenjo (3/5) highest among the other 30 HR Management products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is rexx systems (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Ciphr 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 — 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.
- 13 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
- 2 support facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 pricing 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 (8)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.ciphr.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Security / trust page — found from the homepage www.ciphr.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Payroll handoff — found from sitemap www.ciphr.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Payroll handoff — found from sitemap www.ciphr.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Absence & working-time — found from sitemap www.ciphr.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Recruiting & onboarding — found from sitemap www.ciphr.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Recruiting & onboarding — found from sitemap www.ciphr.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Employee data protection & co-determination — found from sitemap www.ciphr.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →