whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

HR Management

HRworks

EU-Made Report an error

Panel 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 Skeptic

Weighted verdict

Has watched three HR suites promise one system and deliver five modules with a shared logo. Reads every claim for what it does not say: which module the feature lives in, what it costs on top, and whether "integration" means a maintained connector or a documented endpoint someone could build against.

Same scores as the panel view — this lens weights them the way this judge cares.

Scored by The Skeptic

Digital personnel file & data model

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Payroll handoff

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Absence & working-time

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Recruiting & onboarding

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Employee data protection & co-determination

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

European sovereignty

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Pricing transparency not rated — the vendor publishes no price

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

1 of 4 dimensions proven

Built only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.

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

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.

Do you know more about HRworks? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (14)

The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.

  1. 1 Vendor homepage www.hrworks.de Checked 16 Sep 2026 +1 earlier capture: 15 Sep 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Pricing www.hrworks.de Checked 16 Sep 2026 +1 earlier capture: 15 Sep 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Personnel administration www.hrworks.de Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Time recording www.hrworks.de Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Privacy policy www.hrworks.de Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Imprint www.hrworks.de Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Security / trust page www.hrworks.de Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Digital personnel file & data model — found from sitemap www.hrworks.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Payroll handoff — found from sitemap www.hrworks.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Payroll handoff — found from sitemap www.hrworks.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  11. 11 Absence & working-time — found from sitemap www.hrworks.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  12. 12 Absence & working-time — found from sitemap www.hrworks.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  13. 13 Recruiting & onboarding — found from sitemap www.hrworks.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  14. 14 Recruiting & onboarding — found from sitemap www.hrworks.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →