HR Management
HRworks
EU-Made Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 1 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by HRworks GmbH · www.hrworks.de
Compare with Personalwolke → Compare with rexx systems → 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
HRworks is a German HR suite from HRworks GmbH in Freiburg, aimed at KMU in the DACH region (3,500+ KMU customers, 400,000 people claimed), combining Personalverwaltung, Zeiterfassung, Payroll, Personalentwicklung and Reisekostenabrechnung in one cloud package. It is strongest on absence & working-time: stationary and smartphone capture, breaks, overtime and minus hours, monthly overviews and a claimed EuGH/DSGVO-conform documentation are evidenced. It is weakest on digital personnel file & data model: no org chart, custom fields, or dated contract and salary history appear, so the personnel file stays a document store. Payroll handoff lands at 5–6 — DATEV is a named 'Corporate und Schnittstellen Partner', but variable pay, mid-month joiners and leavers and pre-payroll checks go unmentioned. No split between the judges was large enough to flag; the one-point ranges — The Payroll Officer's 7 on absence & working-time crediting vacation and sickness notifications, employee data protection & co-determination's 4-5 weighing the Bitkom audit against an on-request AVV — are emphasis, not contradiction. Sovereignty sits at 5–6 on a German entity (HRB Freiburg 5406) and EU server location on AWS, with no subprocessor list published. Pricing is quote-only.
Speaks for it
- Working-time capture is the best-evidenced area (absence & working-time 6–7), with stationary and smartphone entry, breaks, overtime and minus hours, Soll/Ist control and monthly overviews.
- Payroll sits in the base package with DATEV named as 'Corporate und Schnittstellen Partner' and ADDISON also listed (payroll handoff 5–6).
- Security is third-party attested through a Bitkom Consult GDPR audit and DIN ISO/IEC 27001 certification (employee data protection & co-determination 4–5).
- Contracting is documentable — HRworks GmbH, HRB Freiburg 5406, German Gerichtsstand, EU server location on AWS (sovereignty 5–6).
Held against it
- Digital personnel file & data model sits at 4 with no org chart, custom fields, or dated contract and salary history evidenced.
- Retention periods are unstated, deletion is not shown executable, logging covers inputs and logins rather than who-read-what, and AVV and TOM must be requested rather than published.
- No subprocessor list is published and region detail stops at 'EU' beyond the named AWS hosting.
- No public prices — the tiers HR WORKS and HR WORKS Pro are named but unpriced, with only a free trial and no minimum term public.
Best for
- You are a KMU in the DACH region that needs one suite for working time, absences, vacation and sickness.
- You run payroll through DATEV and want a named interface partner with payroll in the base package.
- Your procurement needs a German contracting entity (HRB Freiburg 5406) and EU server location documented.
- You want third-party security evidence — a Bitkom GDPR audit and ISO 27001 — before signing.
Avoid if
- You need dated contract and salary history, org charts, or custom fields in your system of record.
- Your recruiting process needs structured stages, e-signature, or deletion-deadline governance for applicant data.
- Your works council or DPO requires published retention periods, executable deletion, and who-read-what audit logs before approving.
- You cannot contract without a published subprocessor list or region detail beyond 'EU'.
The scores
Digital personnel file & data model
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The system of record: employee master data, the digital personnel file, org structure, custom fields, and whether history is kept rather than overwritten.
0 — A contact list with job titles; no document storage, no org structure, no history — changes overwrite what was there.
3 — Employee records with document upload, but a flat structure: no org chart, few or no custom fields, and no dated history of contract or salary changes.
5 — Digital personnel file with structured document types, an org chart, custom fields, and change history on the core employment fields.
8 — Complete record: versioned contract and compensation history with effective dates, document templates with e-signature, org structure supporting multiple entities and cost centres, and granular field-level permissions.
10 — The file is the single source of truth an auditor could work from: full effective-dated history on every field, retention rules per document type, delegated administration per entity, and export that reproduces the record intact.
The People Lead
The digital personnel file holding all personnel data and documents, with configurable roles and need-to-know access, clears the 'flat file with documents' bar. But the evidence says nothing about an org chart, custom fields, or dated history of contract and salary changes — and without history the record isn't true, it's only current. 3 5 1
The Payroll Officer
A digital personnel file holding 'sämtliche Personaldaten und Dokumente' is confirmed, with configurable roles and need-to-know access, but the evidence never shows an org chart, custom fields, or effective-dated contract and salary history. Without dated history I cannot trust that a backdated salary change survives the month — this is a flat file with documents, above rubric level 3 only because the suite context and role model are real. 3 5 1
The Works Council Advocate
A digital personnel file holding "sämtliche Personaldaten und Dokumente" with configurable roles and need-to-know access is confirmed, and pay-transparency requirements are said to be implemented in software. But the evidence evidences no org chart, no custom fields and no dated history of contract or compensation changes, so it sits between the flat-structure and full-file anchors. 3 5 1
The Data Protection Officer
A digital personnel file "enthält sämtliche Personaldaten und Dokumente" with configurable roles and need-to-know access exists, but nothing evidences effective-dated contract or salary history, org structure across entities, custom fields, or retention per document type. The record is marketed well; the audit trail beneath it is undocumented. 3 5 1
The IT Integrator
A real digital personnel file with role-based permissions and logged inputs is confirmed, plus legal templates like Entgelttransparenz handled in-software — but the evidence is silent on org chart, custom fields, and dated contract/salary history, which is what makes a system of record rather than a document store. Absence of that evidence keeps me below the 5 anchor. 3 5 1
The Skeptic
A digital personnel file exists and is marketed as covering 'sämtliche Personaldaten und Dokumente', with configurable roles and need-to-know access — but the evidence never mentions an org chart, custom fields, or any dated contract/salary history, which is exactly what separates rubric level 5 from rubric level 3. A file that stores documents is not yet a system of record; silence on history means I score as if history is absent. 3 5 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
DATEV and ADDISON are named partners, with 'Corporate und Schnittstellen Partner' status for DATEV, and Payroll is a core module customers actually run payroll on — that's a named integration for a major system. Nothing on mid-month joiners and leavers, variable pay, or a documented pre-payroll check, which is precisely what decides whether my month closes without chasing anyone. 3 4 1 2
The Payroll Officer
DATEV is named explicitly as 'Corporate und Schnittstellen Partner' alongside ADDISON, and Payroll sits in the base package — a genuine named payroll path, not a spreadsheet handoff. But nothing documents variable pay, mid-month joiners and leavers, retro-accounting for backdated changes, or a pre-payroll check, which is precisely what I need to close a month cleanly, so it holds just above rubric level 5. 2 3 4 1
The Works Council Advocate
DATEV "Corporate und Schnittstellen Partner" status plus ADDISON as a named partner, with a Payroll module in the base suite, is a vendor-maintained named integration beyond a generic export. The evidence is silent on variable pay, absences, mid-month joiners/leavers and any pre-payroll check, so it cannot reach the certified-integration anchor. 4 1 6 3
The Data Protection Officer
A named DATEV integration ("Corporate und Schnittstellen Partner") plus ADDISON and a Payroll module in the base package clears the named-integration bar, which is why this is not a 3. But the evidence documents nothing on variable pay, mid-month joiners and leavers, a pre-payroll check, or retro-accounting — rubric level 8 territory is entirely unevidenced. 2 4 1
The IT Integrator
Payroll is an in-suite module and DATEV interface partnership is claimed ('DATEV Corporate und Schnittstellen Partner') with ADDISON also named, which clears the named-integration bar. But nothing documents what the interface carries — no pre-payroll check, no mid-month joiner/leaver handling, no approval or lock step — so it sits between the 5 and 8 anchors. 3 4 1
The Skeptic
Payroll is a named module and a customer runs their Lohnabrechnung on it, with DATEV listed as 'Corporate und Schnittstellen Partner' — but nowhere is an export format named, a field scope defined, or mid-month joiners/leavers and variable pay addressed. A partner badge is not a maintained connector; I credit the named system but nothing more. 2 4 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
This is real working-time capture — stationary and smartphone, breaks, overtime and minus hours, monthly overview, explicitly replacing the time clock — with vacation and sickness handled and a vendor claim of EuGH/DSGVO-conform documentation. But automatic entitlement and carry-over, per-location holiday calendars, and tamper-evidence are unmentioned, and the ArbZG recording duty is never named, so I can't give it the legal-obligation credit. 3 4 1
The Payroll Officer
Online capture via terminal and smartphone, breaks, overtime and minus-hour accounts, soll/ist control and a monthly per-employee overview are all evidenced, vacation and sickness are recorded with automatic notifications, and the vendor claims EuGH-conform automatic documentation of working time. Missing are public-holiday calendars per location, rest-period rules, tamper-evident records and an export I could hand a labour inspection — that is what holds it below 8. 3 4 1
The Works Council Advocate
Working-time capture via smartphone or stationary system, transparency over breaks, overtime and minus hours, monthly overviews, vacation and sick leave, and an explicit "automatisch EuGH- und DSGVO-konform dokumentiert" claim meet the recording duty at a basic level. But "Kontrolle der Soll- und Ist-Stunden" by Vorgesetzte is a monitoring capability with no evidence of configurable monitoring limits, tamper-evident records, holiday calendars or a labour-inspection export — the §87 questions go unanswered. 4 1 3
The Data Protection Officer
Working-time capture on terminal and smartphone with breaks, overtime and minus-hour accounts, monthly overviews, automated reports, and vacation/sickness handling sits above rubric level 5, and there is a claimed "EuGH- und DSGVO-konform" documentation. But no public-holiday calendars per location, no rest-period rule configuration, no labour-inspection-ready export, and no tamper-evidence are evidenced — for a legal recording duty I need more than a compliance slogan. 3 4 1
The IT Integrator
Working-time capture is well evidenced — terminal and smartphone capture, breaks, overtime and minus hours, target vs actual, monthly overviews — and automatic EuGH/GDPR-conform documentation is at least claimed, which speaks to the recording duty. What's missing: public-holiday calendars, pro-rata entitlement, carry-over, rest-period rules, or any export I could hand a labour inspection. 3 4 1
The Skeptic
Time recording is the best-evidenced area: stationary and smartphone capture, breaks, Soll/Ist control, overtime and minus hours, monthly overviews and automated reports, plus an explicit claim of automatic EuGH/DSGVO-conform documentation — which is more than a timer. But automatic entitlement and carry-over are never stated ('Berücksichtigung von Urlaub und Krankmeldung' is doing quiet work), and nothing on tamper-evidence or works-council monitoring limits. 3 4 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
Both halves exist: applicant management 'von A bis Z' with a careers portal in your own design, and onboarding document collection integrated in the one suite. But there's no evidence of structured stages, rejection handling, or the hired candidate flowing into an employee record without re-entry — so the handover between the two, my main interest, is asserted rather than shown. 3 1
The Payroll Officer
Applicant management 'von A bis Z', a careers portal in corporate design, and onboarding described as seamlessly integrated into the whole employee life cycle are all evidenced in one suite. But structured stages, rejection handling, interview scorecards, applicant deletion deadlines and e-signed contracts appear nowhere — the join path exists, its governance is unevidenced. 3 1
The Works Council Advocate
"Bewerbermanagement von A bis Z", a jobs portal in corporate design, AI job-ad drafts and onboarding document collection are confirmed. The evidence gives no evidence of structured stages, rejection handling, GDPR applicant retention and deletion, or a candidate-to-employee handover without re-entry, so it stays below the anchor-5 flow. 3 1
The Data Protection Officer
Applicant management "von A bis Z", a branded jobs portal, and onboarding document collection cover both halves of the join path, with "Employee Life Cycle in einer Software" hinting at continuity. Structured stages, rejection handling and no-re-entry handover are asserted rather than evidenced, and there is not one word on applicant retention or automated deletion at a stated deadline — the first thing I look for in recruiting data. 3 1
The IT Integrator
Applicant management 'von A bis Z' with a branded jobs portal and an onboarding flow for collecting new-hire documents exist, and the lifecycle-in-one-suite claim suggests the handover. But no structured stages, rejection handling, e-signature, or applicant retention/deletion are evidenced — and the thing I look for, onboarding triggering IT or provisioning an account, appears nowhere. 3 1
The Skeptic
Both halves of the join exist — applicant management with a branded jobs portal and AI job-ad drafts, and onboarding document collection — with 'gesamter Employee Life Cycle in einer Software' gesturing at the handover. But no structured stages, no rejection handling, no e-signature, no applicant deletion deadline, and the no-re-entry handover is a slogan ('von A bis Z'), not an evidenced flow. 3 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
An independent Bitkom GDPR audit, ISO 27001, AVV and TOM on request, need-to-know roles, and logged inputs and logins is more diligence than most vendors show. But retention periods and executable deletion appear nowhere, and logging logins is not an audit of who read what in the file — a works council will ask both questions before it says yes. 3 5 1
The Payroll Officer
An independent Bitkom Consult GDPR audit, ISO 27001 certification, a comprehensive role system with need-to-know access, and logged inputs and logins are solid, documented ground. But the DPA is only 'anzufordern' rather than published, and retention periods, executable deletion, field-level read-logging and any subprocessor list are silent — a works council would not get its answers from this sheet. 3 5 1
The Works Council Advocate
A Bitkom Consult audit confirming GDPR compliance, ISO 27001, DPA and TOM on request, need-to-know roles, logged inputs and logins, and a privacy mode for service requests are more than a procurement checklist. But no retention periods are stated, deletion is never shown as executable, the audit log records inputs and logins rather than who read what, and nothing documents that Personalcontrolling analytics can be switched off — I could not pass this through a works council vote on these pages alone. 5 1 3
The Data Protection Officer
The AVV and TOM must be requested ("anfordern") rather than published and signable — that is a finding in my book, and it caps this score. Roles are genuinely configurable with need-to-know access, ISO 27001 certification and a Bitkom GDPR audit back the security layer, but no retention period is stated, no deletion is shown to execute, the audit log records inputs and logins rather than who read what, and no subprocessor list appears anywhere. 3 5 1
The IT Integrator
An independent Bitkom GDPR audit, ISO 27001, configurable roles on a need-to-know principle, and logged inputs and logins are genuinely strong signals. But the DPA is only available on request rather than published, no retention periods are stated, executable deletion isn't evidenced, and there's no read-level audit — a works council will ask for exactly those three. 3 5 1
The Skeptic
The independent Bitkom Consult GDPR audit plus ISO 27001 are genuinely third-party evidence, and an AVV/TOM are available on request — but the evidence is silent on retention periods and executable deletion, and the logging covers inputs and logins, not who-read-what access. 'Rollen und Berechtigungen' is role-level, not field-level; the Bitkom report is the only reason this isn't a 4. 3 5 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 imprint pins a German GmbH in Freiburg with HRB number and German jurisdiction, and the privacy page states EU server location on AWS — I know exactly who I'd be contracting with and where the data sits. The subprocessor list is not published and the region detail stops at 'EU', so the chain isn't fully traceable; I dock for that. 5 6 1
The Payroll Officer
The imprint pins a German GmbH with HRB Freiburg and German Gerichtsstand, and hosting is stated as EU on AWS servers — a real EU contracting entity with EU hosting, which clears rubric level 5's floor. But AWS is the only named infrastructure, no region beyond 'EU' and no subprocessor list are published, and the sovereignty pipeline itself flags the chain as unverified, so I cannot go higher. 5 1 6
The Works Council Advocate
HRworks GmbH in Freiburg (HRB 5406) with German Sitz und Gerichtsstand, EU server location as standard and AWS named as the hosting provider is a solid EU answer. The subprocessor list is entirely absent — the buyer knows the data centre but not the chain behind it. 6 5 1
The Data Protection Officer
The imprint evidences a German contracting entity (HRworks GmbH, HRB Freiburg 5406) with German seat and jurisdiction, EU server location, and a named data-centre provider in AWS — a real sovereign footing, whatever the pipeline's capture failed to confirm. What keeps this from rubric level 8 is the absence of a published subprocessor list and any naming of non-EU processing with its legal basis. 5 1 6
The IT Integrator
What holds it at 5 is the unpublished subprocessor list — beyond AWS, the chain is unknown, and no data-centre certifications are given. 5 1 6
The Skeptic
The buyer's basics are documented: HRworks GmbH with HRB Freiburg and German courts, EU server location on named AWS infrastructure. What's missing is the published subprocessor list — AWS is a US-headquartered provider, the rest of the chain is unnamed, and the pipeline itself couldn't confirm residency or subprocessors from the vendor's pages, which says something about how findable that documentation is. 5 1 6
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
No numbers anywhere: the pricing page offers 'Ihr passendes Angebot' — every tier is a quote conversation, and the claim of 'transparente Preise ohne Mindestlaufzeiten' shows no price to be transparent about. With two colleagues and a budget to defend, I cannot compute an annual invoice for 400 people from anything public. 2 3
The Payroll Officer
The pricing page offers 'Ihr passendes Angebot' — a quote form, no numbers — and the Pro package is described but unpriced, so no HR lead can compute an annual invoice for any headcount. Only the 'ohne Mindestlaufzeiten' statement and a free trial are public, which is rubric level 0 plus one courtesy disclosure. 2 3 1
The Works Council Advocate
The pricing page shows no numbers at all — "Erhalten Sie Ihr passendes Angebot" — with an HR WORKS Pro tier described but unpriced. A claim of "transparente Preise ohne Mindestlaufzeiten" and a free trial exist, but no per-employee price is public, so an HR lead cannot compute any part of the invoice from these pages. 2 2 3
The Data Protection Officer
Two captures of the pricing page show no numbers whatsoever — "Erhalten Sie Ihr passendes Angebot" — so every tier is a sales conversation. The slogan "Transparente Preise ohne Mindestlaufzeiten" is a claim, not a computable invoice; this is the anchor-0 case almost verbatim. 2 3 2
The IT Integrator
The pricing page is a quote form — 'Erhalten Sie Ihr passendes Angebot' — and even the Pro package is described with features but no number. No per-employee price exists anywhere in the capture, so no HR lead can compute any invoice from public pages; the 'ohne Mindestlaufzeiten' line discloses a term, not a price. 2 3
The Skeptic
There is no price list at all: pricing runs through a quote form ('Erhalten Sie Ihr passendes Angebot') and the two tiers (HR WORKS, HR WORKS Pro) are named but unnumbered. The only public pricing facts are negative or incidental — no minimum term and a free trial — so the annual invoice is not computable in any part; the page's own claim of 'Transparente Preise' next to a quote form takes some nerve. 2 3
European sovereignty — proven facts
1 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | EU only ⚠ unverified | 3/3 pts | 5 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. Residency is stated only as "EU" on a security marketing page without a named country or data center, and hosting runs on AWS, whose parent company is US-headquartered.
- Weak sourcing — 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.
- 21 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
- 9 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
- 9 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
- 7 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
- 5 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
- 4 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
- 2 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
- 2 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (14)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.hrworks.de Checked 16 Sep 2026 +1 earlier capture: 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing www.hrworks.de Checked 16 Sep 2026 +1 earlier capture: 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Personnel administration www.hrworks.de Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Time recording www.hrworks.de Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Privacy policy www.hrworks.de Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 6 Imprint www.hrworks.de Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 7 Security / trust page www.hrworks.de Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 8 Digital personnel file & data model — found from sitemap www.hrworks.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Payroll handoff — found from sitemap www.hrworks.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Payroll handoff — found from sitemap www.hrworks.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Absence & working-time — found from sitemap www.hrworks.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Absence & working-time — found from sitemap www.hrworks.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Recruiting & onboarding — found from sitemap www.hrworks.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 Recruiting & onboarding — found from sitemap www.hrworks.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →