whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

HR Management

Lucca

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 Lucca SAS · www.lucca.fr

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 IT Integrator

Weighted verdict

Owns identity and has to make the HR system the source of truth for accounts. Wants SCIM provisioning, SSO that is not an enterprise upsell, and an API with documentation rather than a partner form. Judges onboarding by whether it can create the account, not by whether it has a checklist.

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

Scored by The IT Integrator

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 IT Integrator

The developer documentation shows a genuine data model: employments carrying effective-dated job positions tied to business establishments, departments and qualifications, with a calculated active, upcoming or deactivated status, and the vendor claims centralization and historization of all HR data. We found no public information on an org chart view, custom fields or structured document types, and the file endpoints are in beta with only upload and retrieve. That structure sits above a flat employee list but falls short of an evidenced digital personnel file. 1 7

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 IT Integrator

Absences — including cancellations, late-arriving requests and periods straddling two months — are grouped and sent to payroll with no manual intervention, which is real handling of mid-month changes, and the French social declaration workflow for sick leave comes with transmission-deadline alerts as the one named downstream. The vendor frames the export as working with whatever payroll software you use, without naming a system or documenting a format, and we found no public information on a certified integration or a pre-payroll check step. 4 5

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 IT Integrator

The absence side is the strongest evidence in this product: seniority, fractionnement, CET, entitlement regularization, public-holiday calendars configurable to local practice, sickness with justification tracking and automatic follow-up reminders, and reporting on leave provisions and absenteeism. We found no public information on working-time recording, break and rest rules, or the German recording duty under the ArbZG — the working-time arrangement feature in the API is opt-in and may not be deployed on a given environment. Absence is well covered; working time as a legal obligation is not evidenced. 4 5

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 IT Integrator

The documented recruitment evidence is a public, unauthenticated job-offers feed in XML that third-party boards and aggregators can pull from opted-in customers, and the employment model supports an upcoming status so a pre-hire record can exist before day one. We found no public information on applicant tracking, structured stages, onboarding tasks, or — the way I judge this — SCIM provisioning or single sign-on that would create the account from the record. 6 7

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 IT Integrator

For the most sensitive data a company holds, we found no public information on a data processing agreement, retention periods, deletion that can be executed, subject-rights support, or a role model beyond what the developer pages imply. The only signals are API access tokens with OAuth scopes and access-control events among the webhook types — developer-facing access control, not employee-data governance. Nothing captured would help a works council decide. 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 IT Integrator

The vendor presents itself as Lucca SAS on a French-language site, but the captured pages give no hosting region, no contracting-entity documentation and no subprocessor list. We found no public information establishing where the data lives or who processes it, so a buyer needing documented European processing has nothing to hold onto. 1

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 IT Integrator

We found no public information on prices — not per-employee rates, tiers, billing period, minimum term or setup fees — on any captured page; the only path shown is "Demander une démo". An HR lead cannot compute any part of the annual invoice from public information. 1 4

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 Lucca? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (7)

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

  1. 1 Vendor page www.lucca.fr Checked 29 Sep 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Payroll handoff — found from sitemap developers.luccasoftware.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Payroll handoff — found from sitemap developers.luccasoftware.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Absence & working-time — found from sitemap www.lucca.fr Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Absence & working-time — found from sitemap www.lucca.fr Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Recruiting & onboarding — found from sitemap developers.luccasoftware.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Recruiting & onboarding — found from sitemap developers.luccasoftware.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →