whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

HR Management

Kenjo

EU-Made Report an error

Panel 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 Data Protection Officer

Weighted verdict

Answers for the most sensitive personal data the company holds, about people who cannot decline the processing. Wants retention that executes rather than promises, a published subprocessor list, and applicant data that deletes itself on the stated date. Treats an unpublished DPA as a finding.

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

Scored by The Data Protection Officer

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

2 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 4 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 Kenjo? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (13)

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

  1. 1 Vendor homepage www.kenjo.io Checked 5 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 15 Sep 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Pricing www.kenjo.io Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Imprint www.kenjo.io Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Privacy policy www.kenjo.io Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Digital personnel file & data model — found from sitemap www.kenjo.io Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Digital personnel file & data model — found from sitemap www.kenjo.io Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Payroll handoff — found from sitemap www.kenjo.io Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Payroll handoff — found from sitemap www.kenjo.io Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Absence & working-time — found from sitemap www.kenjo.io Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Absence & working-time — found from sitemap www.kenjo.io Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  11. 11 Recruiting & onboarding — found from sitemap www.kenjo.io Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  12. 12 Recruiting & onboarding — found from sitemap www.kenjo.io Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  13. 13 Employee data protection & co-determination — found from sitemap www.kenjo.io Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →