whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

HR Management

KiwiHR

Provenance unknown Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: not determined

0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.

by KiwiHR GmbH · www.kiwihr.com

Report an error on this page Is this your product? →

Link to this page

KiwiHR: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai KiwiHR: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai (dark)

Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds. The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.

KiwiHR at a glance

Vendor
KiwiHR GmbH
Headquarters
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
Data hosting
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
Free plan
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
Panel verdict
The AI panel rates KiwiHR 2.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. KiwiHR, from KiwiHR GmbH, sold on the captured pages within the Tellent HR suite, is strongest on payroll readiness and time and absence, both at 7 with no spread: a maintained DATEV connection into LODAS and Lohn und Gehalt carries variable salary components, returns payslips to distribute, and backs pay runs with approver and review step, while leave balances calculate automatically with regional holidays counted into entitlement and the German time-recording duty is stated as met. how scores are made
As of
Vendor pages captured 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources

KiwiHR alternatives, European ones first →

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

Panel median The Skeptic This judge’s scores over the panel median. Each label opens its reasoning below.
Scores per criterion, in stars out of 5
Criterion Panel median The Skeptic
Digital personnel file & data model 3 of 5 2.5 of 5
Payroll handoff 3.5 of 5 3.5 of 5
Absence & working-time 3.5 of 5 3.5 of 5
Recruiting & onboarding 2 of 5 2 of 5
Employee data protection & co-determination 2 of 5 2 of 5
European sovereignty 1.5 of 5 1 of 5

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, document management, an org chart and custom modules are evidenced, and each profile section carries a lock icon with a settings path for read and edit permissions. I stay at the mid mark because the only change history shown is that you can see who edited a profile, and while a salary history overview appears on the payroll page, we found no public information on effective-dated contract versions, document templates with e-signature, or org structures across multiple entities and cost centres. 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 Skeptic

The DATEV connection is a maintained integration rather than a bare export format: you choose LODAS or Lohn und Gehalt, send files directly to the DATEV instance, pull payslips back and distribute them, and variable salary components transfer too. What keeps it short of the top marks is that we found no public information on mid-month joiners and leavers, retro-accounting, or the tax adviser getting their own access; the closest to a pre-payroll check is a pay run review plus data change alerts, and no certification is claimed anywhere in the captured material. 4 5 6 7

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

Both halves are real products: automatic balances with regional holidays factored into entitlement, customizable absence types, a shared calendar, and time capture by app or clock station with overtime, breaks and sick days calculated centrally — plus an explicit claim to meet the German time-recording duty and one-click exports of balances and absences. I stop short of the top marks because the captured pages give nothing on tamper-evident records, configurable break and rest-period rules, or monitoring limits a works council could set. 6 7

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

The join path is assembled from separately branded pieces: an ATS sold as an add-on under the Recruitee name, whose captured help pages document team permissions and email placeholders rather than a careers page, structured stages or rejection handling, alongside journey templates that do name pre-onboarding and offboarding. We found no public information on the handover that turns a hired candidate into an employee record without re-entry, on applicant retention and deletion deadlines, or on e-signed contracts. 1 2 8

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

Deletion can be executed and access is configurable per profile section, but retention runs the other way: employee data stays visible until someone manually deletes it, and no retention periods per data category are stated. We found no public information on a published DPA, an audit log of who read what, subject-rights support, or automatic deletion — the GDPR wording on the marketing pages is an assertion, and the Trust Center pointer names no contents. 2 3 4 7

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 only statements captured are 'developed in Europe, built to European standards' and a Trust Center link, and development origin is not hosting. No captured page states where data is hosted, names a single subprocessor, or confirms the contracting entity — the pages speak as Tellent while the vendor of record is a German GmbH — so on hosting and the processing chain we found no public information to score against. 1 6 7

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

A buyer can learn that the trial is free and that implementation is stated as free and takes a few hours, and that is the entirety of public price information in the captured material. We found no public information on per-employee prices, tiers, billing periods, or what the ATS and performance add-ons cost; the captured journey ends at a free trial and a demo request. 1 4 7

Report an error

Questions about KiwiHR

Is KiwiHR European?

Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where KiwiHR is based.

Where does KiwiHR store data?

Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.

Does KiwiHR have a free plan?

Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.

What are the best alternatives to KiwiHR?

As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates rexx systems (3.5/5), HRworks (3/5) and Kenjo (3/5) highest among the other 30 HR Management products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is rexx systems (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: KiwiHR alternatives.

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 KiwiHR? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (8)

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

  1. 1 Vendor page www.kiwihr.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Digital personnel file & data model — found from sitemap tellent.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Digital personnel file & data model — found from sitemap support.tellent.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Payroll handoff — found from sitemap tellent.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Payroll handoff — found from sitemap support.tellent.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Absence & working-time — found from sitemap tellent.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Absence & working-time — found from sitemap tellent.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Recruiting & onboarding — found from sitemap support.tellent.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →