HR Management
HeavenHR
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by HeavenHR GmbH · www.heavenhr.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
HeavenHR (HeavenHR GmbH, Berlin) scores highest on payroll handoff at 5-6, built on the certified data exchange with social security providers covering DEÜV notifications, postings and auto-retrieved incapacity certificates, with payroll claimed on the same platform as HR and payroll documents visible live. Recruiting & onboarding is 0 — the evidence says nothing about vacancies, applicant tracking or onboarding. Employee data protection & co-determination sits at 1-2: a privacy policy and terms exist, but no DPA, retention periods, role model or audit trail. Digital personnel file & data model holds flat at 3, a digital employee file with no org chart, custom fields or change history evidenced. Absence & working-time lands at 4-5 on self-service absence approvals and browser, stopwatch or terminal time capture, with entitlement and carry-over unevidenced. flagged splits flag none above threshold, though sovereignty spreads 2-4, the widest range in the table, between crediting the Berlin contracting entity and the unstated hosting region and absent subprocessor list. Pricing is unpublished behind a demo gate (pricing transparency 0, uncounted).
Speaks for it
- Certified data exchange with social security providers covers DEÜV notifications, postings and incapacity certificates with responses auto-retrieved
- Payroll runs on the same platform as HR, with payroll documents visible live
- Absence management includes employee self-service and approval workflows
- Working time can be captured via browser, stopwatch or terminal
- Contracting entity is HeavenHR GmbH of Berlin, with the evidence listing EU-made provenance
Held against it
- Recruiting & onboarding scores 0 — no vacancies, applicant tracking or onboarding evidenced
- Employee data protection & co-determination at 1-2 — no DPA, retention or deletion periods, role model or audit trail published
- Digital personnel file & data model flat at 3 — digital employee file with no org chart, custom fields or dated change history
- Absence entitlement calculation and carry-over are unevidenced, holding absence & working-time at 4-5
- Hosting region unstated and no subprocessor list — the evidence records 'no sovereignty attributes on record'
Best for
- You run German payroll and need certified exchange with social security providers for DEÜV notifications, postings and incapacity certificates
- You are an SME (the evidence's positioning) wanting employee files, absence, time tracking and payroll on one platform
- You want absence approvals through employee self-service alongside browser, stopwatch or terminal time capture
Avoid if
- You need recruiting or onboarding — neither is evidenced in the evidence (recruiting & onboarding 0)
- Your works council or data protection officer requires a signable DPA, retention periods, a role model or an audit trail before approval
- You must document hosting region or subprocessors before signing — the evidence records no sovereignty attributes
- You need a personnel file with dated contract or salary history — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
The scores
Digital personnel file & data model
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The system of record: employee master data, the digital personnel file, org structure, custom fields, and whether history is kept rather than overwritten.
0 — A contact list with job titles; no document storage, no org structure, no history — changes overwrite what was there.
3 — Employee records with document upload, but a flat structure: no org chart, few or no custom fields, and no dated history of contract or salary changes.
5 — Digital personnel file with structured document types, an org chart, custom fields, and change history on the core employment fields.
8 — Complete record: versioned contract and compensation history with effective dates, document templates with e-signature, org structure supporting multiple entities and cost centres, and granular field-level permissions.
10 — The file is the single source of truth an auditor could work from: full effective-dated history on every field, retention rules per document type, delegated administration per entity, and export that reproduces the record intact.
The People Lead
"Digital employee file" with centrally managed employee data is the entire story — no org chart, no custom fields, no document types, no contract or salary history, no permissions model anywhere on the evidence. That's a phrase where I need the record that holds up for 400 people; I can't score above the flat-records anchor. 1
The Payroll Officer
"Manage employee data centrally in the digital employee file" is the entire record-keeping story. No org chart, no custom fields, and not one word of dated or versioned history — so I cannot tell whether a backdated contract or salary change survives month-end, and by the anchors that silence caps it at the flat-file level. 1
The Works Council Advocate
A 'digital employee file' with centrally managed employee data is named, which is more than a contact list, but the evidence is silent on org structure, custom fields and whether contract or salary changes keep dated history rather than overwrite. Silence on history is exactly what I cannot accept in a personnel file, so this sits at the flat-file anchor. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The homepage promises a 'digital employee file' with centralised employee data management, but says nothing about org structure, custom fields, dated change history, or retention per document type. That is the flat-file anchor: the file exists on paper, its depth and its history are unevidenced. 1
The IT Integrator
The homepage claims a digital employee file and central employee data management, which clears document storage, but there is no evidence of an org chart, custom fields, or change history — the anchors' flat-structure level. Without dated history and structure I cannot treat this as the master record for identity. 1
The Skeptic
One line — 'digital employee file' — and nothing behind it: no org chart, no custom fields, no change history, no versioned contracts, no field-level permissions anywhere on the page. A file with a logo is a file; the evidence never says what is in it or whether history is kept. 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
Payroll-on-one-platform is claimed with certified transmission to social security providers (DEÜV, incapacity certificates, postings), which is the most concrete thing on the page — but no named payroll system, no documented format, nothing on variable pay, mid-month joiners and leavers, a pre-payroll check, or tax adviser access. The month closes on marketing promises, not a documented handoff. 1
The Payroll Officer
The one thing the page takes seriously: HR and payroll on one platform, with certified data exchange to social security providers covering DEÜV notifications, postings and auto-retrieved incapacity certificates, plus payroll documents visible live. That is genuine plumbing, not a CSV confession — but there is nothing on variable pay, mid-month joiners and leavers, retro-accounting for backdated changes, a pre-payroll check, or whether the tax adviser gets their own access. 1
The Works Council Advocate
Payroll runs natively on the platform and the certified data exchange with social security carriers — DEÜV notifications, incapacity certificates, postings — is a real German compliance artifact. But there is no evidence on absences feeding payroll, mid-month joiners and leavers, variable pay, or any pre-payroll approval and lock step an auditor could retrace, so it stays below the certified-integration anchor. 1
The Data Protection Officer
Payroll runs natively on the same platform — 'from employee setup and time tracking to payroll' — with certification for DEÜV and social-security transmissions, so the month does not leave the system as a re-typed spreadsheet. But nothing documents an approval and lock step, retro-accounting, or access for the external tax adviser, which keeps it below the certified-integration anchor. 1
The IT Integrator
Payroll is claimed as part of the same platform with step-by-step tax and social-security assistants, and the DEÜV certification with auto-retrieved responses (incapacity certificates, postings) is a certified, named integration with social security providers. It falls short of 8 because no named payroll system or in-house-vs-DATEV path is documented, and there is no evidence of a pre-payroll check, approval/lock step, or retro-accounting. 1
The Skeptic
The DEÜV certification claim is the one concrete, checkable thing here — certified exchange of incapacity certificates, postings and social-security notifications is real German plumbing — and payroll is claimed natively on the platform. But the evidence is silent on variable pay, mid-month joiners and leavers, a documented pre-payroll check and retro-accounting; 'intelligent assistants' is not an approval and lock step. 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
Absence via employee self-service with approvals, plus working-time capture by browser, stopwatch or terminal — but entitlement automation, carry-over, sickness recording and holiday calendars are unevidenced, and "in compliance with legal requirements" is a slogan, not the ArbZG documentation an employer hands to a labour inspection. 1
The Payroll Officer
Absence via employee self-service with approval workflows, and working-time capture via browser, stopwatch or terminal explicitly framed as "in compliance with legal requirements", with incapacity certificates riding the DEÜV channel — that is more than a timer. But entitlement calculation and carry-over are never mentioned, and a compliance slogan is not a tamper-evident record I could hand a labour inspection. 1
The Works Council Advocate
Absence management with self-service and approvals plus browser, stopwatch and terminal time capture is claimed 'in compliance with legal requirements' — a claim, not documentation. Nothing evidences automatic entitlement, carry-over or sickness handling, and for the BAG 2022 recording duty I need tamper-evident records and works-council-configurable monitoring limits; the evidence does not say who can read the terminal data or whether anything can be switched off. 1
The Data Protection Officer
Absence management with self-service and approval workflows plus working-time capture via browser, stopwatch or terminal is claimed 'in compliance with legal requirements', but no evidence of automatic entitlement, carry-over, sickness recording, holiday calendars, or an inspection-ready export. The compliance claim is a slogan; I see no documented ArbZG posture, no tamper-evidence, nothing a works council could examine. 1
The IT Integrator
Working-time capture via browser, stopwatch or terminal is explicitly claimed 'in compliance with legal requirements', and absence management with self-service approvals plus auto-retrieved incapacity certificates covers sickness. No evidence on automatic entitlement, carry-over, holiday calendars, or break/rest rules, so it sits at the mid anchor rather than above it. 1
The Skeptic
Absence gets self-service and approval processes, but entitlement calculation, carry-over, sickness recording and an absence calendar go unmentioned; time tracking is claimed 'in compliance with legal requirements' via browser, stopwatch or terminal, yet tamper-evidence, break and rest rules, and an inspection-ready export are all silence. The word 'compliance' is doing work the evidence does not. 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
The evidence is completely silent on applicant tracking, careers pages, contracts and onboarding; as far as the evidence goes, neither exists. Hiring would stay in the shared inbox I'm trying to retire. 1
The Payroll Officer
The evidence is completely silent on vacancies, applicant tracking and onboarding — no careers page, no stages, no checklist, nothing. If a hire's path into the system isn't evidenced, by the anchors it doesn't exist. 1
The Works Council Advocate
The evidence is silent on applicant tracking and onboarding entirely — no vacancies, no candidate data retention or deletion, no handover into an employee record. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The evidence says nothing at all about applicant tracking or onboarding, so as far as this evaluation is concerned neither exists. Applicant data is exactly where deletion deadlines get missed, and here I cannot even find the module, let alone an automated deletion date. 1
The IT Integrator
The single captured page mentions neither applicant tracking nor onboarding, and my specific test — whether onboarding can create an account — has nothing to work with: no provisioning, no SCIM, no task automation, nothing. Absence of evidence in the only registry entry means I treat both halves as absent. 1
The Skeptic
The homepage — the entire evidence base — contains nothing on applicant tracking, vacancies, contracts or onboarding at all. 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
A privacy policy and terms documents exist and account creation requires accepting them, but no signable DPA, no retention or deletion handling, no role model and no audit trail are evidenced. Everything a works council would ask me first is unanswered. 1
The Payroll Officer
A linked Privacy Policy and account creation gated on accepting terms is the whole governance story. No DPA offered, no retention or deletion statements, no role model beyond unstated, no audit trail — nothing here survives a works council conversation, and the sovereignty pipeline has no attributes on record either. 1
The Works Council Advocate
Only a Privacy Policy and separate company/employee Terms & Conditions are published; there is no signable DPA, no retention or deletion periods, no role model, and no audit log of who read which file. The terminal and stopwatch tracking is a behaviour-monitoring instrument with no documented co-determination switches — on this evidence a Betriebsrat cannot answer the §87 questions, let alone approve. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The site lists a Privacy Policy and separate Terms for companies and employees, but no DPA is published — that is itself a finding — and nothing states retention periods, executable deletion, a role model, or an audit log of who read what. The certified social-security exchange secures the pipe to the providers, not the most sensitive employee data at rest. 1
The IT Integrator
A privacy policy and terms documents are published and certified social-security exchange implies some compliance posture, but there is no DPA, no stated retention or deletion periods, no role model, and no audit log anywhere on the evidence. That is one hair above the zero anchor, which expects exactly these absences. 1
The Skeptic
There is a Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions to click-accept, which is the floor of legality, but no signable DPA, no role model, no retention periods, no deletion mechanics and no audit trail appear anywhere. Nothing here a works council could read, let alone approve. 1
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where the data lives, who the contracting entity is, who the subprocessors are, and whether the answer is documented rather than assumed. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; scored here as the buyer would weigh it.
0 — US-headquartered vendor, US contracting entity, hosting region unstated or US, subprocessors not named.
3 — EU hosting is offered as an option but the contracting entity is non-EU, or the subprocessor list is incomplete or absent.
5 — EU hosting stated as standard and an EU contracting entity, but the subprocessor chain includes non-EU providers without an explained safeguard.
8 — EU or DACH hosting with a named data-centre provider, an EU contracting entity, the full subprocessor list published, and any non-EU processing named with its legal basis.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: vendor, contracting entity, hosting and every subprocessor in the EU, certification of the data centres published, and an on-premises or private-cloud option for buyers who need it.
The People Lead
A German GmbH in Berlin is confirmed as the entity, but the sovereignty pipeline has nothing on record: hosting region unstated, no data-centre provider named, no subprocessor list published. Knowing the vendor is German tells me nothing about where my people's data actually sits. 1
The Payroll Officer
HeavenHR GmbH in Berlin with a German imprint and EU-made provenance is at least an EU vendor and contracting entity — better than a US entity. But the hosting region is unstated, no data-centre provider is named, and there is no subprocessor list anywhere; for a payroll system carrying social security data, that undocumented middle of the chain stops it going higher. 1
The Works Council Advocate
HeavenHR GmbH in Berlin is the contracting entity, which is a genuine EU anchor, but the pipeline records no sovereignty attributes: hosting region, data-centre provider and the entire subprocessor chain are absent. Where our employees' data is actually processed is undocumented, which caps this at the incomplete-subprocessor anchor. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The contracting entity is HeavenHR GmbH in Berlin with no US vendor behind it, but the record carries no sovereignty attributes: hosting region unstated and subprocessors not named. An EU imprint does not tell me where the payroll data actually sleeps, and undocumented is not sovereign. 1
The IT Integrator
HeavenHR GmbH is a German contracting entity, but the hosting region is unstated and no subprocessor list exists — the sovereignty pipeline itself records no attributes. That matches the anchor where an EU entity is undermined by an absent or incomplete subprocessor chain. 1
The Skeptic
The imprint confirms HeavenHR GmbH as the contracting entity — that much is real — but hosting region, data-centre provider and the entire subprocessor chain are undocumented: the pipeline records 'no sovereignty attributes on record'. A GmbH suffix is where the sovereignty story starts, not where it ends. 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 page claims HeavenHR is "more affordable than comparable HR and payroll solutions" with no prices published at all — I cannot compute one line of an annual invoice for 400 heads from public evidence. 1
The Payroll Officer
"More affordable than comparable HR and payroll solutions" with no number on the page and a "Schedule Web Demo Now" gate in place of a price list. I cannot compute one month's invoice from public pages, let alone the annual one with payroll and time included. 1
The Works Council Advocate
The page claims to be 'more affordable than comparable HR and payroll solutions' while publishing no numbers at all, only a web-demo gate. An HR lead cannot compute even a starting price, let alone the annual invoice — zero. 1
The Data Protection Officer
No price appears anywhere on the page — only the claim of being 'more affordable than comparable HR and payroll solutions' behind a demo gate. The annual invoice is a sales conversation, which is the zero anchor. 1
The IT Integrator
The page claims HeavenHR is 'more affordable than comparable HR and payroll solutions' while showing no prices at all, and the only path forward is scheduling a web demo. An affordability claim with zero computable numbers is the zero anchor verbatim. 1
The Skeptic
The page's only pricing statement is a claim to be 'more affordable than comparable HR and payroll solutions' — an adjective, not a number — with no per-employee price, tier, billing period or minimum anywhere. The path to a number is 'Schedule Web Demo Now'. 1
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 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. 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 compliance 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
- 12 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 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
- 1 subprocessors fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (4)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.heavenhr.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Payroll handoff — found from sitemap www.heavenhr.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Absence & working-time — found from sitemap www.heavenhr.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Employee data protection & co-determination — found from sitemap www.heavenhr.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →