HR Management
Factorial
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Factorial HR S.L. · factorialhr.de
Compare with HiBob → 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.
Factorial at a glance
- Vendor
- Factorial HR S.L.
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 19 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 19 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 19 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Factorial 1.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Factorial HR S.L., a Barcelona-based HR Management vendor selling into the German market, presents a broad product menu while leaving most operational detail undocumented. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 15 Sep 2026 to 19 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 19 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Factorial HR S.L., a Barcelona-based HR Management vendor selling into the German market, presents a broad product menu while leaving most operational detail undocumented. Payroll readiness is the strongest verdict at a tight 4, on the strength of dedicated DATEV pages including one for DATEV LODAS — though the export format, vendor maintenance of the connector, and mid-month joiners and leavers stay undocumented. Pricing transparency is the weakest, 0 to 2: pricing pages captured in September and October yielded no figures. Core HR records and time and absence, both 2 to 3, rest on marketing pages for document management and vacation management, with no public information on dated change history, automatic entitlement, or working-time recording. Recruiting onboarding shows the widest spread, 2 to 4: the payroll officer, scoring 2, found no public information on structured stages or on handover into an employee record, while the higher scores credited the presence of both applicant-management and onboarding pages. Sovereignty sits at 2 to 3, with AWS and Azure named as infrastructure and no region stated; persona-weighted totals range from 2.2 to 3.3.
Speaks for it
- Dedicated DATEV pages, including one for DATEV LODAS, give payroll a named handoff target
- A platform Data Processing Agreement is publicly available, with audit reports accessible through the trust centre on request
- External security grades are published, dated 27/03/2026: ImmuniWeb A, MDN Observatory B+, Qualys SSL Labs A+
- Stated recovery objectives publish a 1-hour recovery time and a 1-day recovery point
- Applicant management, onboarding and offboarding, vacation management, and document management each have their own pages, so each product area is marketed
Held against it
- Pricing pages captured in September and October 2026 produced no figures, leaving per-employee rates, tiers, billing periods, minimums and VAT treatment unconfirmed
- We found no public information on working-time recording or on how the German working-time recording duty is met
- Amazon Web Services and Azure are named as infrastructure with no hosting region stated, and we found no public information on a subprocessor list or a confirmed contracting entity
- We found no public information on retention periods, executable deletion, field-level permissions, or an audit trail of who accessed whose file
- We found no public information on structured document types, org structure, custom fields, or dated contract and salary history in the personnel file
Best for
- You run payroll in DATEV and want a vendor whose public pages name that handoff
- You are shopping for breadth — personnel files, vacation, applicant management and onboarding in one suite — and will verify details in direct conversations
- Your security review can start from a Data Processing Agreement, a trust centre with audit reports on request, and externally graded security posture
- You prefer an EU-headquartered vendor, Factorial HR S.L. of Barcelona, and are prepared to settle hosting region and subprocessors in contract
Avoid if
- You need working-time recording to meet the German recording duty — the captured pages address vacation management, and we found no public information on working-time capture (the works-council judge cites the BAG ruling)
- You must budget from public prices before engaging sales — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- Your works council or data protection officer requires documented retention periods, executable deletion and role separation before approving — we found no public information on any of these
- You require a stated hosting region or a published subprocessor list before shortlisting — the security page names Amazon Web Services and Azure without a region, and residency and subprocessor exposure are unconfirmed
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Digital personnel file & data model | 1.5 of 5 |
| Payroll handoff | 2 of 5 |
| Absence & working-time | 1.5 of 5 |
| Recruiting & onboarding | 2 of 5 |
| Employee data protection & co-determination | 1.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 0.5 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
Beyond a captured document-management page and a digital personnel file checklist, we found no public information on structured document types, org structure, custom fields, or whether contract and salary changes keep dated history rather than overwrite it. That question is the entire reason I am replacing a shared drive, and it stays open. 5 6 5
The Payroll Officer
The vendor's own document-management page and a checklist for the digital personnel file appear in the captures, but nothing captured confirms structured document types, an org chart, custom fields or any change history. I found no public information on effective-dated contract or salary history, which is what I would need before trusting the file through a backdated raise. 5 6 5
The Works Council Advocate
A document-management offering and a digital-personnel-file page exist in the captures, which is the floor of a personnel file. Beyond the titles, we found no public information on structured document types, org structure, custom fields, or any dated change history — and whether contract changes are versioned rather than overwritten is the first question I would ask. 5 6 5
The Data Protection Officer
Document-management and digital personnel file pages confirm the personnel file is a product area, but the captured facts say nothing about org structure, custom fields, or dated change history. For the file an auditor works from I need versioned contract and compensation history and retention rules per document type, and we found no public information on any of these. 5 5 5
The IT Integrator
Document-management pages sit in the vendor's captured sitemap, so a personnel file is at least marketed, but we found no public information on org structure, custom fields, or effective-dated change and salary history. We also found no public information on a documented API or an export that reproduces the record, and without that I cannot make this file the source of truth I would drive accounts from. 5 5
The Skeptic
Dedicated document-management pages exist, so a digital personnel file is clearly part of the pitch, but nothing captured says what is in it: we found no public information on structured document types, org structure, custom fields, or whether contract and salary changes keep dated history. The closest personnel-file capture is a downloadable checklist template, which markets the problem rather than evidencing the product. 5 6 5
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
Dedicated captured pages for DATEV, including a specific integration page, suggest a named payroll handoff exists. We found no public information on the export format, variable pay, absences, mid-month joiners and leavers, certification, or a pre-payroll check, so whether the month closes without re-typing is unproven. 7 8 7
The Payroll Officer
The captured pages include a DATEV page and an integration page naming DATEV LODAS, so a named payroll path is evidenced in the site's own structure. Nothing captured confirms the export format, variable pay, mid-month joiners and leavers or any pre-payroll check, and I found no public information on certification or vendor maintenance of the integration — so the month would close on trust. 7 8 7
The Works Council Advocate
Dedicated DATEV pages appear in the captures, so a named payroll path is implied. We found no public information on the export format, variable pay, absences, mid-month joiners and leavers, or any pre-payroll check, so the month closing cleanly into payroll is not something these pages evidence. 7 8
The Data Protection Officer
The vendor maintains dedicated pages for a DATEV integration and one labelled DATEV LODAS, so a major payroll system is at least named. The captured facts document nothing about export scope, mid-month joiners and leavers, or a pre-payroll check, so the month does not close on evidence. 7 8 7
The IT Integrator
Dedicated pages for a DATEV integration exist in the vendor's integrations area, so a named payroll path is marketed rather than absent. We found no public information on the export format, automation, mid-month joiners and leavers, or a pre-payroll check, so I cannot tell how much of the month closes without re-typing. 7 8
The Skeptic
The vendor points at DATEV — a DATEV page and an integration page for DATEV LODAS exist — which clears the bar of a named payroll system, but we found no public information on the export format, whether the connector is vendor-maintained, or how joiners, leavers and mid-month changes are handled. A named target without a documented format or a maintained connector is precisely the integration that quietly becomes re-typed data. 7 8 7
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
Vacation-management pages exist, but we found no public information on automatic entitlement, carry-over, sickness recording, working-time capture, or how the German recording duty is met. The legal-obligation half of this is entirely unevidenced, which means the time record would still live somewhere else. 9 10 10
The Payroll Officer
Vacation-management pages appear among the captures, but no captured facts confirm automatic entitlement, carry-over, sickness recording or any working-time capture. I found no public information on how the product meets the German recording duty, so I treat working time as unaddressed in the evidence. 9 10 10
The Works Council Advocate
A vacation-management page appears, so request handling is implied. We found no public information on automatic entitlement, carry-over or sickness recording — and nothing at all on working-time recording, which is the legal duty the BAG ruling created; as captured, this cannot carry that obligation. 9 10
The Data Protection Officer
Vacation-management pages exist, so absence handling is a marketed product area, but we found no public information on automatic entitlement, carry-over, or sickness recording. Critically for the German recording duty, we found no public information on working-time recording at all. 9 10 10
The IT Integrator
Vacation-management pages exist, but we found no public information on automatic entitlement calculation, carry-over, sickness recording, or any working-time recording, and nothing on how the German recording duty is met. For a German buyer that duty is the whole question, and the captured pages do not answer it. 9 10
The Skeptic
Vacation-management pages confirm that absence handling exists, but we found no public information on automatic entitlement, carry-over, sickness recording, or any working-time capture at all — and no public information on how the German working-time recording duty is addressed. Until working time is evidenced, this reads as a vacation tool, not a compliance answer. 9 10
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
Captured pages exist for applicant management and for onboarding and offboarding, which suggests both halves of the join path are present. We found no public information on careers pages, structured stages, applicant deletion deadlines, e-signed contracts, or a handover that creates the employee record without re-entry. 11 12 11
The Payroll Officer
Captures exist for applicant management and for onboarding and offboarding, yet nothing confirms structured stages, a careers page, or the handover of a hired candidate into an employee record without re-entry. I found no public information on e-signed contracts or applicant deletion deadlines. 11 12 11
The Works Council Advocate
Both applicant management and an onboarding/offboarding offering appear in the captures, so both halves of the join path exist. We found no public information on structured stages, applicant retention and deletion deadlines, or whether the hired candidate flows into the employee record without re-entry. 11 12
The Data Protection Officer
Pages exist for applicant management and for onboarding and offboarding, so both halves of the join path are present at marketing level. We found no public information on structured stages, on the handover of a hired candidate into an employee record, or on applicant deletion at a stated deadline, the point I weigh first. 11 12 11
The IT Integrator
Pages exist for both applicant management and onboarding/offboarding, but we found no public information on how a hired candidate carries over into the employee record without re-entry. We also found no public information on SCIM provisioning, a documented API, or onboarding tasks that reach IT — my test is whether onboarding creates the account, and that is unanswered here. 11 12
The Skeptic
Pages exist for both applicant management and onboarding/offboarding, so both halves of the join path are on the menu, but we found no public information on careers pages, structured stages, rejection handling, e-signed contracts, or whether a hired candidate carries over into an employee record without re-entry. The handover between those two pages is exactly the seam where one system becomes two. 11 12 11
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
A platform data processing agreement is publicly referenced, and least-privilege access, logging, and a trust centre with audit reports on request are named. We found no public information on retention periods, deletion that can be executed, field-level permissions, or an audit trail of who read what, which are the first questions a works council asks me. 4 13
The Payroll Officer
A platform data-processing agreement is available, the trust centre offers audit reports on request, and single sign-on, least-privilege access and logging are named as controls. I found no public information on retention periods per data category, deletion that can be executed, subject-rights support, or monitoring settings a works council could negotiate. 4 13 14
The Works Council Advocate
The security page confirms a Data Processing Agreement exists and lists logging, but only in the context of the vendor's own internal controls. We found no public information on retention periods, configurable role separation, a customer-readable audit trail of who accessed whose file, or whether the AI features named on that page can be switched off — for a works council decision under co-determination law, that silence is decisive. 4 13 13
The Data Protection Officer
A platform data processing agreement is available on the security page, alongside SSO and MFA questions and a trust centre with audit reports on request, which keeps this off the bottom. We found no public information on retention periods, on deletion that executes rather than promises, on field-level permissions with an audit log of who read what, or on a published subprocessor list; a works council would have nothing concrete to review. 4 13 14 13
The IT Integrator
A platform data processing agreement is available, and the security pages name least-privilege access, logging and even AI training-data handling, which is more than a checkbox posture. We found no public information on retention periods per data category, executable deletion, or field-level role separation, so a works council review would have to start from the DPA and nothing else. 4
The Skeptic
A data processing agreement is available through the security page and access controls with logging are described — but for Factorial's own operations, not a customer-configurable role model — and we found no public information on retention periods, executable deletion, subject-rights support, or field-level permissions. The captured privacy and GDPR pages give a works council nothing it could vote on. 4 3 13
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 Factorial HR S.L. of Barcelona and names AWS and Azure as its infrastructure, but no hosting region is stated in the captured pages, and we found no public information confirming the contracting entity or naming the subprocessor chain. I cannot tell from public pages where my four hundred people's data would actually sit. 4
The Payroll Officer
The vendor presents as Factorial HR S.L. of Barcelona, and the captured security page names Amazon Web Services and Azure as infrastructure with no hosting region stated. I found no public information confirming the contracting entity's jurisdiction, the hosting region or any subprocessor list, so the sovereignty answer is assumed rather than documented. 3 4
The Works Council Advocate
The vendor is Barcelona-based, which is a start, but the captured pages name AWS and Azure as infrastructure with no hosting region stated, and we found no public information confirming the contracting entity or any subprocessor list. For an HR system holding our employees' data, that is an open question, not an answer a data-protection officer can file. 4
The Data Protection Officer
The vendor is identified as Factorial HR S.L. of Barcelona, an EU company, but the captured pages name Amazon Web Services and Azure without stating any hosting region. We found no public information confirming the contracting entity on the vendor's own pages, and none on a subprocessor list; until the region is stated, I must assume the data could sit anywhere. 4 1
The IT Integrator
The vendor is presented as a Barcelona company, but the captured pages name only Amazon Web Services and Azure as infrastructure with no region stated. We found no public information on data residency, on the contracting entity as confirmed on the vendor's own pages, or on any subprocessor list, so as a buyer I cannot say where the data lives. 4
The Skeptic
The security page names Amazon Web Services and Azure as infrastructure but states no region for either, and we found no public information on the contracting entity, data residency, or any subprocessor list on the captured pages. The vendor being a Spanish company is the one fact holding this above the bottom: an EU vendor with hyperscaler hosting of unstated region and no published subprocessor chain is a contract question, not a documented answer. 4
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 German pricing page was captured, but no price figures, per-employee rates, billing period, minimum terms or VAT treatment were confirmed in what was captured. No annual invoice for my headcount can be computed from public pages, which keeps this a sales conversation. 2 2
The Payroll Officer
A pricing page appears in the captures, but the captured content gives no figures for tiers, per-employee prices, billing period, minimums or VAT treatment. An HR lead cannot compute an annual invoice from what is public here; I found no public information on any price at all. 2 2
The Works Council Advocate
A pricing page appears in the captures, but no figure could be confirmed from it — no per-employee rate, billing period, or module price for payroll, time or recruiting. An HR lead cannot compute an annual invoice from what is captured here. 2 2
The Data Protection Officer
Pricing pages exist, yet the captured facts contain no price at all: no per-employee rate, no tiers, no billing period, no minimums or setup fees. An HR lead cannot compute an annual invoice from this; we found no public pricing information beyond the existence of the pages. 2 2
The IT Integrator
Pricing pages exist and were captured twice, yet no per-employee figure, billing period, minimum, or module price was confirmed from them. We found no public information on module-level pricing at all, so an HR lead cannot compute the annual invoice for their headcount from what is public. 2 2
The Skeptic
The vendor's pricing page was captured twice, in September and October, and neither capture produced a single figure; we found no public information on per-employee prices, tiers, billing period, minimums, or VAT treatment. An HR lead cannot compute even the entry-level annual invoice from what is public here. 2 2
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Factorial
Is Factorial European?
Yes. whats-best.ai classifies Factorial as EU-Made.
Where does Factorial store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 19 Oct 2026.
Does Factorial have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 19 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Factorial?
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: Factorial alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 15 Sep 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency, Subprocessors, Legal entity. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- We could not confirm any pricing information on the vendor’s own pages as captured, so this page shows none rather than a statement we cannot stand behind. Know more? Tell us
- 243 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
- 41 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
- 33 integrations 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 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
- 12 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
- 9 legal facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 6 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
- 6 hosting 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 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. 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 homepage factorialhr.de Checked 19 Oct 2026 +2 earlier captures: 16 Sep 2026, 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing factorialhr.de Checked 19 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy factorialhr.de Checked 19 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Security / trust page factorialhr.de Checked 19 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Digital personnel file & data model — found from sitemap factorialhr.de Checked 19 Oct 2026 +2 earlier captures: 13 Oct 2026, 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Digital personnel file & data model — found from sitemap factorialhr.de Checked 19 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Payroll handoff — found from sitemap factorialhr.de Checked 19 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Payroll handoff — found from sitemap factorialhr.de Checked 19 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Absence & working-time — found from sitemap factorialhr.de Checked 19 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Absence & working-time — found from sitemap factorialhr.de Checked 19 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Recruiting & onboarding — found from sitemap factorialhr.de Checked 19 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Recruiting & onboarding — found from sitemap factorialhr.de Checked 19 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Employee data protection & co-determination — found from sitemap factorialhr.de Checked 19 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 Employee data protection & co-determination — found from sitemap factorialhr.de Checked 19 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →