HR Management
Eurécia
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Eurécia · www.eurecia.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.
Eurécia at a glance
- Vendor
- Eurécia
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Eurécia 1/5, the mean of 6 judges. Eurécia is a French-language HR platform (SIRH) whose captured homepage claims 400K users, 4500 client companies and 20 years of HR expertise. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Eurécia is a French-language HR platform (SIRH) whose captured homepage claims 400K users, 4500 client companies and 20 years of HR expertise. The bench's scoring favours it on one criterion: core HR records, a uniform 4, resting on a named directory with org chart, centralised documents and contracts, electronic signature and a digital safe. It is weakest on employee data governance (a uniform 1 — no public information on retention, executable deletion, configurable roles, audit logging or a signable data-processing agreement) and payroll readiness (a uniform 2 — a pay & compensation module and automatic DPAE are named, but no payroll system, export format or month-close detail is public). Time and absence scores 1-2, the payroll officer alone at 1 on a bare module label. Recruiting and onboarding splits 2-3. Sovereignty spreads 1-3: judges crediting the French site and French DPAE scored higher; those requiring documented hosting, contracting entity or subprocessors scored 1. No price appears anywhere on the page.
Speaks for it
- Core HR records scores a uniform 4, with a directory, org chart, centralised documents and contracts, electronic signature and a digital safe named on the captured page
- The automatic pre-hiring declaration (DPAE) is the one payroll-adjacent step with a described function — meeting legal deadlines at each hire
- Onboarding and offboarding are named modules beside e-signed contracts, making part of the joiner path visible to a buyer
- The vendor states 400K users, 4500 client companies and 20 years of HR expertise on its homepage
Held against it
- Employee data governance scores a uniform 1, with no public information on retention periods, executable deletion, configurable roles, audit logging or a signable data-processing agreement
- Payroll readiness scores a uniform 2: no named payroll system, export format, variable-pay handling or mid-month joiner and leaver treatment is public
- Time management appears only as a module label — no entitlement, carry-over, sickness recording or working-time capture is described
- No public information exists on hosting region, contracting entity or subprocessors, and no sovereignty attributes are on record; sovereignty scores spread 1-3
- No price, tier or billing term appears on the captured page — a phone number is the only commercial step
Best for
- You want a centralised personnel file — directory, org chart, e-signed contracts, digital safe — as the heart of your HR administration; core HR records is the product's strongest score
- You hire in France and want the pre-hiring declaration (DPAE) automated at each hire
- You work in French and prefer a French-language platform with phone-based contact; the vendor cites 4500 client companies
Avoid if
- You must clear a data-protection or works-council review that needs published retention, role, audit-log and data-processing-agreement answers before signature — governance is scored uniformly 1
- You need the month to close into a named payroll system without re-typing — payroll readiness sits at 2 with no export or integration detail public
- You must document hosting region, contracting entity and subprocessors for procurement or data-protection filings — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You need working-time recording built to a legal recording duty, with per-employee export — time and absence scored 1-2 on an undescribed module
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Digital personnel file & data model | 2 of 5 |
| Payroll handoff | 1 of 5 |
| Absence & working-time | 1 of 5 |
| Recruiting & onboarding | 1.5 of 5 |
| Employee data protection & co-determination | 0.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1 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
A directory with an org chart, centralized documents and contracts, e-signature and a digital safe are named on the homepage, which is more than our shared drive — but we found no public information on custom fields, dated change history, or multi-entity structures with cost centres. I can see a place to put the file, not evidence the record stays true over time. 1
The Payroll Officer
The captured page names a directory with org chart, documents and contracts with electronic signature, and a digital safe for essential documents — more than a contact list. We found no public information on dated change history for employment or salary fields, custom fields, or versioned contract and compensation records, so I cannot treat this as a file an auditor could work from. 1
The Works Council Advocate
The captured page shows a directory with an org chart, centralised documents and contracts, electronic signature and a digital safe — the bones of a personnel file. We found no public information on custom fields, dated change history or field-level permissions, which is what I would need before co-determining access to the file. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The captured page markets a documents-and-contracts module with electronic signature, a digital safe, and a directory with org chart, so a structured personnel file is clearly part of the product. We found no public information on custom fields, dated change history on employment or compensation, or field-level permissions — exactly what would make the file a record an auditor could work from. 1
The IT Integrator
The captured homepage names a directory with an org chart, centralised documents and contracts, electronic signature and a digital safe — a recognisable personnel file with structure behind it. We found no public information on custom fields, effective-dated change history, versioned contracts or field-level permissions, so the depth behind those labels is undocumented. As identity owner I need the file to hold dated history a joiner flow and an auditor can rely on, and that is not shown. 1
The Skeptic
The captured page names a directory with an org chart, centralised contracts and documents, electronic signature, and a digital safe — the skeleton of a personnel file, all on one page. What it does not say decides this: we found no public information on custom fields, dated change history on employment or compensation, or field-level permissions, so the file looks structured but history-free in the public record. 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
A payroll and compensation module is named alongside an automatic hiring declaration (DPAE), so a payroll path is at least stated — but we found no public information on any named payroll system, export format, variable pay, mid-month joiners and leavers, or a pre-payroll check. The month-close question I care most about is unanswered in public. 1
The Payroll Officer
A payroll and compensation module is named and automatic DPAE at each hire is offered, so some payroll path exists and the hiring declaration is automated. But we found no public information on any named payroll system, export format, variable pay, mid-month joiners and leavers, or a pre-payroll check — nothing here shows the month closes without somebody retyping it. 1
The Works Council Advocate
A pay and compensation module and an automated French pre-hiring declaration (DPAE) are listed, so a payroll path of some kind exists, but we found no public information on any named payroll system, export format, handling of mid-month changes or a pre-payroll check. A module name does not show me how the month closes. 1
The Data Protection Officer
A pay and compensation module and an automatic pre-hiring declaration (DPAE) are marketed, so payroll is in the product's scope and one hiring-related obligation is automated. We found no public information on export formats, named payroll system integrations, handling of mid-month joiners and leavers, or any pre-payroll check — the monthly handoff is invisible to a buyer. 1
The IT Integrator
A pay & compensation module and an automated pre-hiring declaration for new hires are named, which puts a payroll path on the record. We found no public information on any named payroll system, export format, variable pay, or the handling of mid-month joiners and leavers. Whether the month closes into payroll without re-typing cannot be answered from these pages. 1
The Skeptic
A pay and compensation module is announced, plus automatic DPAE for hiring declarations, so a payroll path is at least claimed. We found no public information on any named payroll system, export format, variable pay, or mid-month joiners and leavers — whether the month closes cleanly or gets retyped is a sales conversation. 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
Time management and expenses-and-benefits modules are listed, but we found no public information on automatic vacation entitlement, carry-over, sickness recording, or working-time recording built to meet the German recording duty. A module name does not close a month. 1
The Payroll Officer
Time management appears as a module heading with no described capability. We found no public information on vacation entitlement or carry-over, sickness recording, break and overtime rules, or working-time records an inspector could be handed. 1
The Works Council Advocate
A time-management module is named, but we found no public information on automatic entitlement, carry-over, sickness recording, or whether working-time capture is tamper-evident and configurable to the legal recording duty a works council must sign off on. A module name is not a compliance story. 1
The Data Protection Officer
Time management appears as a named module alongside expenses and pay, but the captured page says nothing about what it does. We found no public information on vacation entitlement and carry-over, sickness recording, working-time capture per employee, or any documented compliance with the German recording duty — only that some form of time handling exists. 1
The IT Integrator
A time-management module is listed, but we found no public information on entitlement calculation, carry-over, sickness recording, or break and rest-period rules. Nothing captured addresses working-time recording as a legal duty or an export an employer could hand to a labour inspection. A module label is not a compliance answer. 1
The Skeptic
Time management appears as a module label and nothing else in the captured material. We found no public information on automatic entitlement, carry-over, sickness recording, absence calendars, or working-time capture with per-employee reporting, so I credit only that the category exists in the pitch. 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
Onboarding and offboarding is a named module, the automatic hiring declaration points at a joiner flow, and contracts with e-signature are visible — but we found no public information on applicant tracking, a careers page, structured stages, or the handover from hiring into the employee record. Only half the join path is even visible to a buyer. 1
The Payroll Officer
An onboarding/offboarding module is named, with e-signed contracts and automatic DPAE at hire, which touches the join path. We found no public information on applicant tracking, a careers page, structured stages or rejection handling, so only half of the join is visible in public evidence and not even a checklist is described. 1
The Works Council Advocate
Onboarding and offboarding are named modules, with electronic signature for contracts and an automated pre-hiring declaration for new joiners, which covers part of the join path. We found no public information on applicant tracking, structured stages or the handover of a hired candidate into an employee record. 1
The Data Protection Officer
Onboarding and offboarding are marketed as their own module, so half the join path exists; the automatic pre-hiring declaration supports the hiring step. We found no public information on applicant tracking, a careers page, rejection handling, or how a hired candidate is carried into an employee record. 1
The IT Integrator
Onboarding and offboarding appear as a module, and the automated pre-hiring declaration wires the hire into the legal step — but I judge onboarding by whether it creates the account, and we found no public information on provisioning into IT or identity systems. We also found no public information on applicant tracking, careers pages, or the candidate-to-employee handover. What is visible is one labelled module with the join path behind it undocumented. 1
The Skeptic
Onboarding and offboarding are named, with electronic signature for contracts and automatic DPAE beside them — half the join path is at least advertised. We found no public information on applicant tracking, careers pages, structured stages, or the handover that turns a hired candidate into an employee record without re-entry. 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
Documents are marketed as centralized and secured, with a digital safe offering secure access, but we found no public information on a published data processing agreement, retention periods, deletion execution, role separation, an audit log, or works-council considerations. Nothing here would get through a serious data-protection review as presented. 1
The Payroll Officer
The pages promise to centralize and secure HR documents in a digital safe, but we found no public information on retention periods per document type, executable deletion, configurable roles, an audit log of access, or a signable data-processing agreement — nothing a works council could review. 1
The Works Council Advocate
The digital safe is described as offering secure access to documents, which implies some access control, but that is all I can see. We found no public information on a data processing agreement, configurable roles, retention and deletion, an audit log of who read what, or whether monitoring or analytics can be switched off — the questions a works council must have answered before approval are not addressed in public. 1
The Data Protection Officer
For the most sensitive data the company holds, the captured page offers security-flavoured marketing — centralised, 'secured' document storage and a digital safe — and nothing else. We found no published data processing agreement, no stated retention periods, no deletion that can be executed rather than promised, no role model, no audit logging, and no subprocessor list; for applicant data specifically there is no stated deletion deadline at all. An unpublished DPA is a finding, and here it is not even addressed as available on request. 1
The IT Integrator
We found no public information on retention periods, executable deletion, a signable data-processing agreement, configurable roles, or any audit of who read what; the digital safe with secure document access is the only governance-relevant item captured. That is a vault, not a data-protection model. A works council cannot be taken to yes on these pages. 1
The Skeptic
The only privacy-adjacent language is "secure" document storage and secured access to a digital safe, which is security marketing, not governance. We found no public information on retention periods, deletion that can be executed, role separation, a signable data processing agreement, or anything a works council could actually 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 presents entirely in French with a French phone number and a French hiring declaration, which weakly suggests an EU operation — but we found no public information on hosting location, the contracting entity, the data-centre provider, or any subprocessor list. The answers a buyer needs are simply not documented anywhere I can see. 1
The Payroll Officer
The vendor presents itself in French with a French support line and 4500 client companies, which suggests a European base, but we found no public information on hosting region, contracting entity, data-centre provider or a subprocessor list, so where the data actually lives is undocumented. 1
The Works Council Advocate
The site is French-language with a French support number, so this reads as a French vendor, but no sovereignty details are on record. We found no public information on hosting location, contracting entity, named data-centre provider or any subprocessor list — undocumented is undocumented, and I cannot weigh data location the vendor has not stated. 1
The Data Protection Officer
No sovereignty attributes are on record: we found no public information on hosting location, contracting entity, or any subprocessor, published or otherwise. The entirely French-language site and a French support line suggest a France-based vendor, but where employees' data physically sits and who processes it is assumed rather than documented. 1
The IT Integrator
A French-language site, French-specific modules like the automated pre-hiring declaration, and a French support line make an EU operating base plausible. But we found no public information on hosting region, contracting entity or a published subprocessor list, and the vendor carries no sovereignty attributes on record. Plausible is not documented, so I score the documented part. 1
The Skeptic
We found no public information on hosting region, contracting entity, or subprocessors — the captured page is silent on all three, and no sovereignty attributes are on record. A French-language site and a French phone number are a hint, not documentation. 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
The captured page names modules and a contact phone number, and we found no public price, tier, billing period, or minimum of any kind. I cannot compute a single line of the annual invoice for 400 people from what is published. 1
The Payroll Officer
No price of any kind appears on the captured page — no per-employee rate, no tier, no billing period, no setup or minimum terms; the only commercial step offered is a phone number, so an HR lead cannot compute even part of a real annual invoice from public pages. 1
The Works Council Advocate
No price of any kind appears on the captured page — no per-employee rate, no tiers, no billing period, no minimums. Every figure is a sales conversation, so an HR lead cannot compute a real annual invoice from public pages. 1
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public information on prices, tiers, billing periods or minimum terms — the captured page offers only a phone number to call sales. An HR lead cannot compute any part of the annual invoice for their headcount from public pages. 1
The IT Integrator
We found no public pricing — no per-employee rate, no tiers, no billing period, no setup or minimum terms; the only commercial gesture captured is a contact phone number. An HR lead cannot compute any part of the annual invoice from the public pages. Every configuration starts as a sales conversation. 1
The Skeptic
We found no public pricing at all: no per-employee rate, no tiers, no billing period, no minimums or setup fees. The only commercial gesture on the captured page is a phone number to call, so an HR lead can compute nothing about the annual invoice. 1
Questions about Eurécia
Is Eurécia European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Eurécia is based.
Where does Eurécia store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Eurécia have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Eurécia?
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: Eurécia alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 13 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- 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
- 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 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 legal fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 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
- 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 (1)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.eurecia.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →