HR Management
Kenjo
EU-Made Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 2 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Kenjo GmbH · www.kenjo.io
Compare with Personalwolke → 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
Kenjo is an HR-management suite from Kenjo GmbH, Berlin, aimed at SMEs and deskless workforces. Its strongest area is absence & working-time: time tracking, a clock terminal, leave management and shift scheduling are all evidenced modules. Digital personnel file & data model and recruiting & onboarding top out at a flat 4 — personnel file, org chart, digital signature, an ATS add-on and onboarding/off-boarding are named, but the evidence shows no change history, custom fields or field-level permissions behind them. The weakest cluster is payroll handoff: payroll prep is a module title only, no payroll system or export format is named, and the APIs and integrations a handoff needs sit in the demo-gated Connect tier. The bench splits twice. Sovereignty spans 2-5 — the flagged disagreement — because the imprint pins Kenjo GmbH at Amtsgericht Charlottenburg (HRB B 183681B) while the evidence marks product hosting and subprocessor exposure unknown and Anthropic PBC (USA) is named for transcript analysis. Employee data protection & co-determination splits 2-4 over whether the vendor's own privacy policy — real hygiene, but governing Kenjo's site, not customer employee records — can carry the product.
Speaks for it
- Time tracking, a time-clock terminal, leave management and shift scheduling are all evidenced modules, giving absence & working-time the table's highest functional range.
- Digital personnel file, org chart, digital signature and document management are named modules, holding digital personnel file & data model at 4.
- The imprint fully evidences the contracting entity: Kenjo GmbH, Berlin, Amtsgericht Charlottenburg HRB B 183681B, German VAT DE311075739.
- Starter at 6 € and Growth at 10 € per employee are publicly priced with a 10% annual discount toggle.
- A 14-day free trial is published for hands-on evaluation.
Held against it
- Payroll handoff scores 2-3: no payroll system, export format or mid-month joiner/leaver handling appears beyond module titles.
- The APIs, integrations, labour-law warnings and time-tracking automation sit in the Connect tier, which is demo-gated with no public price.
- The evidence evidences no change history, custom fields, field-level permissions or audit log in the personnel file, so digital personnel file & data model stops at 4.
- No signable DPA, role model or product-side retention is evidenced — the privacy policy covers the vendor's own site and Kenjo's applicants, not customer employee records (employee data protection & co-determination 2-4).
- The evidence marks the product's data residency, ownership and subprocessor exposure unknown (sovereignty attributes 0 of 10), and Anthropic PBC (USA) is named for call-transcript analysis.
Best for
- You run an SME with shift-based or deskless staff and want time tracking, a clock terminal, leave management and shift scheduling in one system.
- Your payroll runs in another system and you need core HR records plus recruiting and onboarding, not a proven payroll handoff.
- A fully evidenced German contracting entity (Kenjo GmbH, Berlin) matters more to you than confirmed product hosting residency.
- You want one suite spanning HR, time, recruiting and onboarding and can verify record depth yourself during the 14-day trial.
Avoid if
- You need a documented handoff to a payroll system or a defined export format — payroll handoff scores 2-3 with neither named.
- You must present a signable DPA, role model and audit log to a works council or DPO before installation — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You need ArbZG/BAG working-time-recording compliance out of the box — the labour-law warnings sit in the demo-gated Connect tier.
- You require confirmed product hosting residency or a published customer-data subprocessor chain before signing — the evidence marks both unknown.
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
Digitale Personalakte, Organigramm, document management and digital signature are all named modules, which clears the flat-list floor — but nothing on the evidence evidences versioned contract/salary history with effective dates, custom fields, multi-entity org depth, or permissions beyond the surface. For a record that must be true three years back, that silence is information. 2 3
The Payroll Officer
Digital personnel file, organigramm and digital signature are real modules, with document management in Starter, but the evidence says nothing about dated change history, custom fields, multi-entity structures or field-level permissions. Nice folder; not yet a system of record you could audit a backdated salary change in. 2 3 4
The Works Council Advocate
The module list names a digital personnel file, document management, an org chart and digital signature, which clears the 3-anchor — but the evidence says nothing about change history on employment fields, custom fields, field-level permissions or retention per document type, and I do not sign off on a personnel file whose history I cannot see. Missing evidence is missing capability here. 2 3 4
The Data Protection Officer
Digitale Personalakte, Organigramm, Dokumentenmanagement and digitale Unterschrift are all named as modules, which clears the flat-structure anchor — but there is no evidence anywhere of change history, custom fields, or effective-dated contract and compensation records. The evidence names features; it never shows history that survives an edit, and I cannot credit what is not documented. 2 3 4
The IT Integrator
Module names for a digital personnel file, digital signature, org chart and workflows exist, which clears the flat-contact-list floor, but the evidence shows nothing on custom fields, effective-dated contract or salary history, multi-entity org structure, or field-level permissions — the difference between rubric level 3 and rubric level 5 is unevidenced in either direction, so I sit just below 5. 3 4
The Skeptic
The nav bar promises a digital personnel file, org chart and digital signature, which clears the 'no org chart' bar — but nothing on the evidence evidences change history, effective dating, custom fields or field-level permissions, so I cannot distinguish this from a flat file with upload. Module names are marketing; an auditor needs the record model, and the evidence never shows it. 2 3 4
Payroll handoff
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether the month closes cleanly into payroll — DATEV, Lohn und Gehalt, an in-house system or an external tax adviser — and how much of that is automated rather than re-typed.
0 — No payroll path stated at all; whatever leaves the system leaves as a spreadsheet somebody retypes.
3 — Generic CSV export said to be usable for payroll, with no named payroll system, no defined format and no handling of mid-month changes.
5 — A named payroll integration or a documented export format for at least one major system (e.g. DATEV LODAS/Lohn und Gehalt), covering the recurring monthly fields.
8 — Certified or vendor-maintained integration with a named payroll provider, covering variable pay, absences and mid-month joiners and leavers, with a documented pre-payroll check.
10 — Payroll is a first-class part of the product: maintained bidirectional integrations with several named systems, an auditable approval and lock step before transmission, retro-accounting for backdated changes, and the tax adviser given their own access.
The People Lead
A 'Vorbereitende Lohnabrechnung' module and 'Abrechnungsmanagement' are named, so a payroll path exists on paper — but no named system (DATEV or otherwise), no export format, no mid-month joiner/leaver handling, and the APIs and integrations sit in the unpriced Connect tier behind a demo booking. I cannot tell from this whether my month closes or somebody retypes it. 2 1 3
The Payroll Officer
"Vorbereitende Lohnabrechnung" and "Abrechnungsmanagement" are module names only: no named payroll system, no defined export format, no variable-pay, absence or mid-month joiner/leaver handling, and the only integration path sits in the unpriced Connect tier. Someone is retyping this month into something — the evidence never says what. 2 3 4
The Works Council Advocate
A 'Vorbereitende Lohnabrechnung' module and 'Abrechnungsmanagement' are named, but no payroll system, export format, mid-month joiner/leaver handling or pre-payroll check appears anywhere — a payroll path by name only, which sits between rubric level 0 and rubric level 3. 2 1 3
The Data Protection Officer
"Vorbereitende Lohnabrechnung" and "Abrechnungsmanagement" exist as named modules, but no payroll system is named — no DATEV, no Lohn und Gehalt, no export format, nothing on mid-month joiners and leavers. The only integration evidence is "APIs und Integrationen" locked inside the unpriced, demo-gated Connect tier, which is exactly the payroll-relevant capability a buyer cannot evaluate. 2 1 3 4
The IT Integrator
"Vorbereitende Lohnabrechnung" and "Abrechnungsmanagement" are named modules, so a payroll path is stated — but no named payroll system, no export format, no mid-month joiner/leaver handling, and the only integration path ("APIs und Integrationen") is locked behind the contact-sales Connect tier. A module name I cannot connect to DATEV or anything else is a retyped spreadsheet waiting to happen. 2 1 3
The Skeptic
A 'vorbereitende Lohnabrechnung' module exists and Starter lists Abrechnungsmanagement, but no payroll system is named — no DATEV, no format, no mid-month joiner/leaver handling — and 'APIs und Integrationen' sits inside the unpriced, demo-gated Connect tier. That is a payroll path stated and nothing more; the handoff is somebody's re-typing until proven otherwise. 2 3 4
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
Urlaubsverwaltung, Zeiterfassung, a Zeiterfassungs-Terminal and Schichtplanung are all real modules in one system, which is the breadth I want — but automatic entitlement and carry-over, sickness recording and any documented ArbZG/BAG-2022 compliance are absent from the evidence, and Zeiterfassungsautomatisierung and labour-law alerts hide in the gated Connect tier. 2 3 4
The Payroll Officer
Leave management, time tracking, shift planning and a time-clock terminal are evidenced, which beats a bare request form. But nothing on automatic entitlement, carry-over, sickness, break rules or any reference to the ArbZG/BAG recording duty or tamper-evidence — a timer is not a legal record. 2 4
The Works Council Advocate
Time tracking, a clock terminal, leave management and shift scheduling are in the core offering, which is real breadth, but nothing documents automatic entitlement, sickness handling, break and rest rules, tamper-evident records or the BAG/ArbZG recording duty — and there is not one word about monitoring limits a Betriebsrat could configure. Breadth without the legal-duty documentation gets the middle anchor. 2 3 4
The Data Protection Officer
Urlaubsverwaltung, Zeiterfassung, a Zeiterfassungs-Terminal and Schichtplanung are all evidenced, so this is more than a timer — but there is no evidence of automatic entitlement or carry-over, sickness recording, break and rest rules, or any documentation of the ArbZG recording duty. The one compliance signal, "Warnmeldungen bei Nichteinhaltung des Arbeitsrechts," sits in the unpriced Connect tier; working-time law is not an upsell. 2 3 4
The IT Integrator
Zeiterfassung, a Zeiterfassungs-Terminal, Urlaubsverwaltung and Schichtplanung are in the base tiers, which is more than request-and-approve — but nothing evidences automatic entitlement and carry-over, sickness recording, per-location holiday calendars, or any ArbZG/BAG recording-duty compliance, and "Zeiterfassungsautomatisierung" itself sits in the unpriced Connect tier. 2 3 4
The Skeptic
Time tracking is clearly more than a timer — module, reports, a terminal, shift planning, and Connect adds automation and shift templates. But the evidence is silent on entitlement calculation, carry-over, sickness, holiday calendars, and above all on the BAG/ArbZG recording duty; a German vendor selling Zeiterfassung without one documented word on the legal obligation gets no benefit of the doubt. 2 3 4
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 in one suite — an ATS at a publicly priced 249 €/month add-on and an Onboarding/Off-Boarding module — but nothing confirms a careers page, structured stages, applicant retention/deletion for customers, or that the hired candidate lands in the employee record without re-entry. The 6-month applicant deletion in the privacy policy governs applying to Kenjo itself, not the product's feature. 2 3
The Payroll Officer
An ATS exists as a priced add-on and onboarding/offboarding is a listed module, with applicant deletion at 6 months and a 2-year talent pool stated in the privacy policy. No evidence of a careers page, structured stages, or the handover that turns a hired candidate into an employee record without re-entry. 2 3 4
The Works Council Advocate
Both an ATS add-on and an onboarding/off-boarding module exist, and applicant deletion is actually stated — six months after rejection, two years in the talent pool — but no careers page, structured stages, handover into the employee record or e-signed contract flow is evidenced. Two halves without proof of the join. 2 3 4
The Data Protection Officer
An ATS exists as a priced add-on (249 €/month) and Onboarding/Off-Boarding is a named module, so both halves of the join path exist — but there is no evidence of a careers page, structured stages, or the candidate-to-employee handover without re-entry. And I must be precise: the 6-month application deletion and 2-year talent-pool rule in govern people applying to Kenjo itself, not a product capability that deletes my applicants' data on schedule; a product-side deletion date is not evidenced. 2 3 4
The IT Integrator
Both halves exist as modules — Recruiting/ATS as a priced 249 €/month add-on and Onboarding/Off-Boarding in the HR list — plus genuinely stated applicant retention (6 months, 2 years talent pool). But nothing shows the candidate-to-employee handover without re-entry, a careers page, or onboarding that triggers anything in IT: no account creation, no provisioning, no SCIM. A checklist that doesn't create the account is exactly what I don't grade. 2 3 4
The Skeptic
Both halves are named — an ATS as a €249/month add-on and an onboarding/offboarding module — which is more than one orphaned checklist. But there is no evidence of careers page, structured stages, rejection handling, or the candidate-to-employee handover, and the six-month applicant deletion I do see is Kenjo's own hiring policy, not the product's feature. 2 3
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
The privacy policy is genuinely decent — DPO contact, full Art. 15–21 rights, stated retention with automatic deletion, no profiling, contractual AI-training exclusion — but that is Kenjo's own compliance posture. For the product itself the evidence says nothing about role models, field-level permissions, an audit log, or analytics switchable off for co-determination, which with a time-clock terminal is exactly what a BetrVG §87 conversation will ask about. 4
The Payroll Officer
The privacy policy is substantive: automatic deletion at stated retention periods, Arts 15-21 rights, a DPO, AI-training exclusion and no profiling. But no signable DPA is evidenced, no role or field-level permissions, no audit log, and the HR-analytics and survey modules come with no evidence they can be switched off for a works council. 3 4
The Works Council Advocate
The privacy policy is respectable for the vendor's own website — Art. 15-21 rights, a DPO address, executed deletion periods, no profiling — but it governs kenjo.io visitors and applicants to Kenjo GmbH, not the product: no DPA, no role model, no audit log of who read which personnel file, and no evidence that the HR analytics, surveys and 360° reviews can be switched off for co-determination. A tool that cannot answer those questions does not get installed, so this sits between the 0 and 3 anchors. 4
The Data Protection Officer
No DPA is published or offered anywhere in this sheet — for the processing I would actually be handing over, that is disqualifying at this score level. The privacy policy is decent for Kenjo's own house: DPO contact, Art. 15–21 rights, no profiling, named subprocessors with countries, and "automatisch gelöscht" retention for transcripts and analytics data — but every one of those auto-deleting retention periods covers Kenjo's website, sales and own-hiring data, not customer employee records. Nothing evidences a product role model beyond tier packaging, an audit log of who read what, configurable retention per data category, or monitoring I could switch off in front of a works council. 4
The IT Integrator
The privacy policy is real work: DPO contact, the full Art. 15–21 rights list, SCC/BCR/adequacy safeguards, AI-training exclusion, and executable retention for applicants and transcripts (6/12/24 months, auto-delete). But there is no published signable DPA, no role model beyond nothing stated, no audit log, and no retention statement for employee records themselves — that sits between rubric level 3 and 5, and a works council would ask the questions this sheet cannot answer. 4
The Skeptic
The privacy policy shows real hygiene — DPO contact, Art. 15–21 rights, executed automatic deletion, no profiling, AI training excluded — but it governs the vendor's own website and sales processing, not the customer's employee records. No DPA is offered on the site, no role model is described anywhere, no audit log, no field-level access, nothing on BetrVG §87; product-side governance is a blank page. 4
European sovereignty
panel opinion
panel disagrees
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 contracting entity is solidly German — Kenjo GmbH, Berlin, HRB B 183681B at Amtsgericht Charlottenburg — and the privacy policy claims all processing stays in the EEA, particularly Germany. But no data-centre provider is named for the product itself, the customer-data subprocessor chain is not published, and the 'nothing leaves the EEA' claim sits awkwardly next to Anthropic (USA) and Google in the subprocessor list, which I cannot reconcile as a buyer. 3 4
The Payroll Officer
The imprint pins vendor and contracting entity as Kenjo GmbH, Berlin, with German register and VAT numbers. But the product's hosting region is unconfirmed — the EEA/Germany statement covers the web-analytics stack — and there is no published subprocessor list, with Anthropic (USA) and Google named incidentally for transcription. 3 4
The Works Council Advocate
The contracting entity is a German GmbH with a Charlottenburg registry number and one processing location is stated as Germany, but the product's hosting residency, ownership and its own subprocessor chain are all marked unknown, and the subprocessors that are named include US providers (Anthropic, Google) — for vendor processes, with the product's hosting nowhere confirmed. 3 4
The Data Protection Officer
The contracting entity is solidly German — Kenjo GmbH, Berlin, Amtsgericht Charlottenburg HRB B 183681B, German VAT — and several subprocessors are published with countries and addresses. 3 4
The IT Integrator
The imprint evidences a German contracting entity in full — Kenjo GmbH, Amtsgericht Charlottenburg HRB B 183681B, Berlin, German VAT ID — so I cannot follow the pipeline's 0. But the residency claim in covers sales/web analytics on Supabase, not the HR suite's hosting, which the evidence leaves undocumented; named non-EU subprocessors exist (Anthropic, USA) with safeguards stated, and ownership is unknown. 3 4
The Skeptic
The Impressum nails the contracting entity — Kenjo GmbH, Berlin, Amtsgericht Charlottenburg — and the privacy policy claims EEA/Germany processing, but that claim covers the vendor's web sphere: the product's hosting region is marked unknown, the product's subprocessor chain is unpublished, and even the vendor's own chain shows Anthropic PBC (USA) and Google on call transcripts plus a Singapore-registered Supabase. German letterhead, unverifiable data path. 3 4
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
I can compute the core for my 400 heads: Starter 6 € or Growth 10 € per employee, monthly or annual with 10 % off, recruiting add-on at 249 €/month, onboarding from 400 €. But Connect — the tier holding the APIs, integrations and time-tracking automation I would actually need — is demo-gated with no price, and VAT treatment and minimum term are unstated. 2
The Payroll Officer
Starter at €6 and Growth at €10 per employee are public with a monthly/annual toggle showing 10% annual saving, onboarding from a stated €400 one-time, and the recruiting add-on priced at €249/month. It fails at the top: Connect, holding the APIs and integrations a payroll path would need, is demo-gated with no number, and VAT treatment and minimum term are unstated. 2
The Works Council Advocate
Starter at 6€ and Growth at 10€ per employee are public with a monthly/annual toggle, the recruiting add-on at 249€/month and onboarding from 400€ are stated — but the Connect tier holding the APIs, integrations and time-tracking automation is demo-book only, and VAT treatment, minimum term and any headcount minimums are not published. 2
The Data Protection Officer
Starter at 6 € and Growth at 10 € per employee, the monthly/annual toggle with 10 % saving, the 249 € recruiting add-on and the onboarding fee from 400 € are all public — more than most vendors show. But Connect, which holds the APIs, integration and compliance-warning capabilities a payroll handoff depends on, is "DEMO BUCHEN" with no price, and minimum term and VAT treatment are unstated, so an HR lead still cannot compute the full annual invoice. 2
The IT Integrator
Starter at 6 € and Growth at 10 € per employee are public, with the monthly/annual toggle (10% annual saving), a priced recruiting add-on, and an onboarding fee stated as "ab dem 400 €". But Connect — the tier holding APIs, integrations and time-tracking automation — has no public price and requires a demo booking, VAT treatment and minimum term are unstated, and "from 400 €" is a floor, not an invoice line. 2
The Skeptic
Real credit where due: Starter €6 and Growth €10 per employee, monthly/annual toggle with 10% annual discount, recruiting add-on at €249/month, onboarding 'ab dem 400€', all public. But Connect — holding the APIs, integrations, time-tracking automation and labor-law warnings — is demo-gated with no number, and VAT treatment and minimum term are unstated; 'from €400' is a floor, not a price. 2
European sovereignty — proven facts
2 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 | Incorporated in DE | 3/3 pts | 3 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | EU only ⚠ unverified | 3/3 pts | 4 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. This statement comes from the website privacy policy rather than a product/hosting page, and section 2.4 separately discloses that support-chat data is transferred to countries outside the EU/EEA under standard contractual clauses, so the default is EU-only but not absolute.
- Weak sourcing — 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.
- 34 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
- 21 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
- 10 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
- 7 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
- 6 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 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
- 3 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
- 1 data fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is 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 (13)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.kenjo.io Checked 5 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing www.kenjo.io Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Imprint www.kenjo.io Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Privacy policy www.kenjo.io Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Digital personnel file & data model — found from sitemap www.kenjo.io Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Digital personnel file & data model — found from sitemap www.kenjo.io Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Payroll handoff — found from sitemap www.kenjo.io Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Payroll handoff — found from sitemap www.kenjo.io Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Absence & working-time — found from sitemap www.kenjo.io Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Absence & working-time — found from sitemap www.kenjo.io Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Recruiting & onboarding — found from sitemap www.kenjo.io Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Recruiting & onboarding — found from sitemap www.kenjo.io Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Employee data protection & co-determination — found from sitemap www.kenjo.io Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →