HR Management
PayFit
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by PayFit · payfit.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Link to this page
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.
PayFit at a glance
- Vendor
- PayFit
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
- Data hosting
- Default not stated; pages mention the EU source, captured 3 Nov 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates PayFit 2/5, the mean of 6 judges. PayFit is a UK, payroll-first HR product: the vendor takes full legal responsibility for HMRC compliance and automates FPS and EPS submissions. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 3 Nov 2026; evaluated by the panel 3 Nov 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
PayFit is a UK, payroll-first HR product: the vendor takes full legal responsibility for HMRC compliance and automates FPS and EPS submissions. Payroll readiness is strongest at 8 to 9. Recruiting and onboarding is weakest at 1 to 2: the documented join path is a payroll step, and "onboarding" means the vendor setting up your account. Core HR records scores 2 to 3: employee master data serving payroll, with no public information on personnel file, org structure or change history. Time and absence holds a flat 4: leave requests, balances and manager approval flow into payroll, but working-time and sickness recording are untested. Governance and sovereignty score 3 to 4: a substantive privacy policy (Paris DPO, ISO 27001, Article 28 agreements) and hosting on AWS servers within the EU — but the contracting entity is Payfit Ltd of London under UK GDPR, transfers of some personal data outside the EU are acknowledged, and no published subprocessor list was found. Criterion scores never differ by more than a point; persona-weighted totals run 3.3 to 4.9 — weighting, not disagreement — and no public prices appear.
Speaks for it
- Vendor takes full legal responsibility for HMRC compliance, with CIPP-qualified experts preparing and checking every pay run for the customer's approval before payout
- Automated HMRC FPS and EPS submissions plus direct monthly pension submissions to five named providers: NEST, Smart Pension, Aviva, NOW Pensions and People's Pension
- Joiners, leavers, statutory pay and tax-code updates are automated — P45s generated, PILON calculated — with variables accepted up to payday and closed runs undoable and re-runnable
- Approved leave and expenses flow automatically into payroll, with manager approval from a portal, remaining-holiday balances and a shared team calendar
- Privacy policy names a Data Protection Officer in Paris, ISO 27001, encryption in transit and at rest, Article 28 processor agreements and retention periods per data category
Held against it
- Recruiting and onboarding scores 1 to 2 — the documented join path ends at HMRC notification, pension enrolment and the first payslip, with no public information on applicant tracking or new-hire checklists
- Core HR records scores 2 to 3 — we found no public information on a personnel file, org structure, custom fields, change history or field-level permissions
- Time and absence holds at 4 — we found no public information on working-time recording, break or rest rules, or sickness handling
- We found no published subprocessor list, data processing agreement or data-centre certification, while the privacy policy acknowledges transfers of some personal data outside the EU under adequacy decisions or standard contractual clauses
- Interactions with the vendor's AI assistant are retained for 18 months, and we found no public information on limits, an opt-out, an audit log of who read which record, or settings a works council could review
Best for
- You want UK payroll run for you rather than payroll software you operate — HMRC submissions automated, pensions paid to five named providers, an expert-checked run you approve before payout
- Your absence needs are leave-shaped — requests, balances, manager approval, a shared calendar, custom policies — flowing straight into the pay run
- You want a closed loop where approved leave and expenses reach payroll automatically and a mistaken run can be undone and re-run
Avoid if
- You need to recruit — applicant tracking, job postings, interview scheduling — or run a new hire's first day beyond the payroll steps documented (HMRC notification, pension enrolment, first payslip)
- You run payroll outside the UK — the submissions documented go to HMRC and UK pension providers, and we found no public information on DATEV or German payroll formats
- You must record hours worked — the works council advocate found the ArbZG recording duty unaddressed on the captured pages, with only leave management documented
- You need HR records as your system of record — org structure, custom fields and change history are unanswered on the public pages, and the people lead notes you would still type the structure in by hand
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Digital personnel file & data model | 1.5 of 5 |
| Payroll handoff | 4.5 of 5 |
| Absence & working-time | 2 of 5 |
| Recruiting & onboarding | 1 of 5 |
| Employee data protection & co-determination | 2 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 2 of 5 |
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 — Not a system of record for employees; the product holds no employee master data or personnel file.
3 — Employee records with master data and documents uploaded to a personnel file; org structure, custom fields and change history are basic or not described.
5 — A digital personnel file with employee master data and document storage, an org chart or department structure, custom fields, and access to the record controlled by role.
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
The pages name an HR management system module and show employee records in daily use — payslips archived per person, personal workspaces, leave balances and monthly reports — but I found no public information on a document-based personnel file, org structure, custom fields or change history. Replacing eleven spreadsheets would still mean typing the structure in by hand. 2 4 5
The Payroll Officer
The pages name an HR management system and people management modules, and every payslip is archived per employee, so employee master data clearly lives here. But I found no public information on the personnel file itself — org structure, custom fields, contract history, or who may read what — which is what I would need before trusting it as the record. 2 4 5
The Works Council Advocate
An HR management system and people management module are named, payslips are archived per employee, and new employees are added with their data flowing into payroll. But I found no public information on a personnel file with org structure, custom fields or change history — whether the record keeps its history rather than overwriting it is the first question our committee asks, and it stays unanswered. 2 4
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pages name an HR management system alongside payroll, expenses and performance, with payslips archived in the cloud and employee self-service, so employee records plainly exist. We found no public information on a digital personnel file, org structure, custom fields or change history, so this stays at the basic level. 2 4 5
The IT Integrator
The captured pages show an HR management system holding employee records with pay data, leave balances and archived payslips that new starters are added into, but we found no public information on a document personnel file, org structure, custom fields, field-level permissions or change history. I also found no public information on a documented API or account provisioning that would let this record act as the source of truth for identities. 1 2 4
The Skeptic
The captured pages list an HR management system as a module and show employee records being created — add a new employee and payslips archived per person — but the pages stop at naming the module. We found no public information on org structure, custom fields, versioned contract or compensation history, or role-based access to the record; what is evidenced is employee master data serving payroll, not a described personnel file. 2 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 — Payroll is outside the product: it holds none of the pay-relevant data and offers no path toward payroll.
3 — A payroll-relevant export (CSV, Excel or PDF) of master data, absences or hours for the payroll office; named formats and mid-month changes are basic or not described.
5 — A named payroll integration or a documented export for at least one major system (e.g. DATEV LODAS/Lohn und Gehalt), or the vendor's own payroll module, covering master data, absences and the recurring monthly changes.
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
The vendor runs payroll itself, takes legal responsibility for HMRC compliance, has CIPP-qualified experts prepare and check every pay run for my approval, and sends FPS and EPS to HMRC automatically. Approved leave and expenses flow into payroll on their own, variables are accepted up to payday, joiners and leavers are handled automatically, and an error can be undone and re-run; only retro-accounting for backdated changes and an outside adviser's own access are not described. 1 2 4 5
The Payroll Officer
Payroll runs inside the product with automated HMRC submissions, CIPP-qualified experts preparing and checking every pay run that the customer approves before payout, and AI flagging salary changes and missing variables before close. Variable pay can be added up to payday, joiners get HMRC notification, pension enrolment and a first payslip, leavers get automated PILON and a P45, and an error after the run can be undone, corrected and re-run. I found no public information on retro-accounting for backdated changes or on giving a tax adviser their own access. 1 4 5
The Works Council Advocate
This product is payroll-first: CIPP-qualified experts prepare and check every pay run, the customer approves before anything goes out, joiners and leavers are automated down to the P45, variables can be added up to payday, and a mistaken run can be undone and re-run. Every documented submission, however, goes to HMRC and UK pension providers; for a German payroll office I found no information on DATEV, Lohn und Gehalt or the tax adviser's own access. 4 2 1 6
The Data Protection Officer
Payroll is the product itself: the vendor takes on full legal responsibility, submits FPS and EPS to HMRC automatically, pays pensions directly to named providers, and covers joiners, leavers, statutory pay and tax-code changes. Every run is prepared and checked by CIPP-qualified experts with customer approval before payout and an undo-and-rerun for errors, which puts it just short of the top level where bidirectional links and adviser access would need to be shown. 4 1 6
The IT Integrator
Payroll is the product rather than a handoff: automated HMRC RTI submissions with the vendor taking on full legal responsibility for HMRC compliance, direct pension submissions to five named providers, automated joiners and leavers with P45 generation, statutory pay, tax-code updates, variables accepted up to payday, customer approval before payout, an AI check that flags anomalies before the month closes, and the ability to undo and re-run a closed run. The captured pages describe UK payroll only; we found no public information on DATEV or German payroll formats. 1 2 4 5
The Skeptic
Payroll is the product rather than a handoff: automated HMRC FPS and EPS submissions, direct monthly submissions to five named pension providers, joiners and leavers automated, variables accepted up to payday, expenses and approved leave flowing in automatically, and a customer approval step before anything goes out, with CIPP-qualified experts checking every run and undo-and-rerun after errors. Short of the top only because no bidirectional integration is described and we found no public information on access for an external tax adviser. 1 4 5
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 — Absence and working time are outside the product's scope.
3 — Vacation requests with an approval step and an absence overview; entitlement rules and working-time recording are basic or not described.
5 — Vacation and sickness recorded with automatic entitlement balances, a team absence calendar with public holidays, and working-time recording with a report per employee.
8 — Configurable per country and contract: pro-rata entitlement and carry-over, 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
Vacation works end to end: employees request and track their remaining allowance, managers approve from a portal without chasing, a shared calendar shows who is away, policies can be customised, and exports run by month or tax year. I found no public information on sickness recording, public-holiday calendars or working-time recording, which is the gap that holds this back. 5
The Payroll Officer
Leave requests with manager approval, remaining-allowance balances, a shared team calendar and custom leave policies are documented, and approved leave flows into payroll — the part I care about at month-end. I found no public information on working-time recording, sickness tracking or public-holiday calendars, so the recording-duty side of this criterion is a blank on these pages. 4 5
The Works Council Advocate
Leave requests with manager approval, live holiday balances, a shared team calendar and custom policies are well documented, and approved leave flows straight into payroll. But I found no public information on working-time recording at all — for us that is the legally required part under the ArbZG recording duty, and a tool that cannot show a record of hours worked does not pass our committee. 5 4
The Data Protection Officer
Leave requests with manager approval, holiday balances, a shared team calendar, custom leave policies and monthly or tax-year exports are described, and approved leave flows automatically into payroll. We found no public information on working-time recording, sickness handling or public-holiday calendars, so this sits between the basic and mid levels. 5
The IT Integrator
Leave management is real: employees request leave and see remaining allowance, managers approve from a portal, custom policies such as birthday leave and volunteer days can be built, a shared calendar shows who is away, and dashboards export balances and trends by month or tax year, with approved leave flowing automatically into payroll. We found no public information on working-time recording, break or rest rules, or compliance with the German recording duty, and sickness recording is not described on the captured pages. 2 5
The Skeptic
Leave requests with manager approval from a manager portal, remaining-holiday balances, a shared team calendar, custom leave policies and exports by month or tax year are documented, with approved leave flowing into payroll automatically. We found no public information on working-time recording, break or rest rules, or sickness handling, so the statutory-recording side of this criterion is untested by the captured pages. 2 5
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 is part of the product.
3 — Job postings with an applicant list and statuses, or an onboarding checklist for new hires; the handover between the two is basic or not described.
5 — Applicant tracking with a careers page, pipeline stages and candidate communication, plus onboarding checklists or tasks for new hires, with the hired candidate carried into an employee record.
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
I found no public information on applicant tracking, careers pages or onboarding checklists for new hires; the only joiner capability documented is payroll-side — add an employee and HMRC notification, pension enrolment and the first payslip happen automatically. "Onboarding" on these pages means the vendor setting up my account and first payroll, not a new hire's first day. 1 4 6
The Payroll Officer
The onboarding described on these pages is the customer's move to PayFit — an onboarding team preparing the account and supporting the first payroll run — not the employee join path. What is documented on joining is payroll-side: add a new employee and HMRC notification, pension enrolment and the first payslip happen automatically; I found no public information on applicant tracking or new-hire checklists. 1 4 6
The Works Council Advocate
The documented join path ends at payroll: adding a new employee triggers the HMRC notification, pension enrolment and first payslip, and a vendor team sets up the customer account. I found no public information on applicant tracking, interview stages, contracts or onboarding checklists for new hires. 4 1 6 2
The Data Protection Officer
The pages show automated new-starter steps — HMRC notification, pension enrolment, first payslip — but the onboarding material captured concerns the customer's migration onto the platform rather than a new hire's join. We found no public information on applicant tracking, a careers page or onboarding checklists, so the join path is barely evidenced. 4 6 1
The IT Integrator
We found no public information on applicant tracking — no job postings, pipeline stages or candidate communication appear on the captured pages. The joiner path is a single automated step: add a new employee and HMRC notification, pension enrolment and the first payslip are handled; we found no public information on onboarding checklists, equipment or IT task triggers. What the pages describe as onboarding is the vendor's team preparing the customer's account and first payroll run, not the new hire's day one. 1 4 6
The Skeptic
The join path shown is one payroll step: add a new employee and the vendor handles HMRC notification, pension enrolment and the first payslip. We found no public information on applicant tracking, job postings, interview scheduling, e-signed contracts or new-hire checklists — the onboarding pages describe the vendor setting up the customer's account, not the employee's first day. 1 4 6
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 — The vendor states that it offers no data processing agreement and no separation of access, leaving employee data protection entirely to the customer.
3 — A data processing agreement (AVV) available and roles that separate HR administrators from managers and employees; retention, deletion and co-determination settings are basic or not described.
5 — A data processing agreement available, roles and permissions configurable per module or team, deletion of employee and applicant data supported, and GDPR or works-council guidance describing how the product supports compliance.
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 documents retention periods per data category, a Data Protection Officer in Paris, ISO 27001, encryption and Article 28 agreements with processors, and the separate manager and employee portals imply role separation. I found no public information on field-level access control, audit logs of who read what, configurable retention or deletion for employee data, or settings a works council could review. 3 4 5
The Payroll Officer
There is a documented privacy posture — a Data Protection Officer appointed, Article 28 processor agreements, ISO 27001, and retention stated per category such as six years after contract end for customer identification data and three years for prospects. But for the product itself I found no public information on configurable roles and permissions, deletion of employee records, audit logs, or anything a works council could review. 3 6
The Works Council Advocate
There is a data protection officer in Paris, ISO 27001, Article 28 processor agreements and stated retention periods — including eighteen months for every interaction with the AI assistant. But I found no public information on an audit log of who read which employee record, on field-level permissions, or on whether the AI's flagging of unusual salary changes can be switched off; until those three questions are answered, a co-determination negotiation under BetrVG §87 has nothing to hold on to. 3 7 4 5
The Data Protection Officer
The privacy policy publishes concrete retention periods — six years for customer identification data after contract end, three for prospects, eighteen months for assistant interactions — names a Data Protection Officer in Paris, and confirms Article 28 written agreements with processors. But we found no public information on a customer data processing agreement, a published subprocessor list, configurable retention or deletion inside the product, audit logs or works-council guidance, which a works council would need. 3 7 5
The IT Integrator
The privacy policy is substantive: an appointed Data Privacy Officer, published retention periods per data category, Article 28 written agreements with processors, ISO 27001 certification and encryption in transit and at rest. We found no public information on field-level access control, an audit log of who read what, configurable retention for employee records, or AI and monitoring features that can be switched off for a works council. The only role separation described is the employee, manager and admin portals. 2 3 4
The Skeptic
The privacy policy does real work: a named Data Protection Officer with contact details, ISO 27001, encryption in transit and at rest, Article 28 written agreements with processors, and stated retention periods for named data categories. But we found no public information on field-level permissions, an audit log of who read what, automatic deletion per employee data category, or works-council guidance — and the AI assistant answers employee HR and payroll questions with interactions retained for 18 months, with no documented limits or opt-out. 1 3 5
European sovereignty
panel opinion
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. Dimensions not proven either way are unknown, not non-European.
0 — Vendor, contracting entity and hosting shown to be outside the EU, and no data processing agreement offered.
3 — A privacy policy and a data processing agreement exist and one European element is proven (an EU contracting entity or representative, or EU hosting as an option); the rest of the chain is not stated.
5 — An EU contracting entity and EU hosting stated, with a data processing agreement; the subprocessor list is not published in full or includes non-EU providers without a stated safeguard.
8 — EU or DACH hosting with a named data-centre provider, an EU contracting entity, the full subprocessor list published with locations, 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
Hosting is the strong part: personal data is stated to sit on Amazon Web Services servers within the European Union, contracted through AWS EMEA SARL in Luxembourg, and transfers outside the EU are acknowledged with safeguards named. The contracting entity on the captured pages is Payfit Ltd in London, and I found no public information on a data processing agreement or a published subprocessor list with locations. 2 3
The Payroll Officer
The contracting entity is Payfit Ltd in London under UK GDPR, while hosted data sits with Amazon Web Services EMEA SARL on servers located within the European Union, and the policy states some personal data may reach providers outside the EU under adequacy decisions or contractual clauses. The captured pages publish no subprocessor list and show no data processing agreement, so the chain is only partly documented. 2 3
The Works Council Advocate
The contracting entity is Payfit Ltd in London under UK GDPR with the Information Commissioner's Office as supervisory authority, while hosting is stated on Amazon Web Services servers within the European Union, contracted through the Luxembourg entity. The privacy policy acknowledges that personal data may be transferred to providers outside the EU and EEA, and I found no published subprocessor list or data-centre certification in the captured pages. 2 3 5
The Data Protection Officer
Hosting is proven European — Amazon Web Services servers within the EU, contracted through AWS EMEA SARL in Luxembourg — and the contracting entity is Payfit Ltd of London operating under UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018, with transfers outside the EU and EEA acknowledged under adequacy decisions or standard contractual clauses. We found no public information on a published subprocessor list or a data processing agreement, so only part of the chain is documented. 2 3
The IT Integrator
The strongest element is hosting: the privacy policy states personal data is stored by Amazon Web Services on servers within the European Union, and the legal notice names Amazon Web Services EMEA SARL in Luxembourg. The contracting entity is Payfit Ltd at a London address operating under UK GDPR with the Information Commissioner's Office as supervisory authority, and transfers of some personal data to unnamed providers outside the EU and EEA are acknowledged with adequacy decisions or standard contractual clauses claimed. We found no public information on a published subprocessor list with locations, data-centre certification, or hosting options beyond the EU cloud. 2 3 6
The Skeptic
Two dimensions are proven: hosting on Amazon Web Services servers located within the European Union, contracted through Amazon Web Services EMEA SARL in Luxembourg — and a contracting entity, but that entity is Payfit Ltd of London operating under UK GDPR with the ICO as supervisory authority. The policy acknowledges transfers of personal data outside the EU under adequacy decisions or standard clauses without naming the processors involved, and we found no published subprocessor list, data-centre certification, or on-premises option. 2 3 5
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 — A public "from" price per employee or one priced tier; how cost scales with modules, minimum headcount or setup is unclear.
5 — Per-employee prices public for the main tiers with the billing period stated and the main inclusions given; some modules (payroll, time, recruiting) or setup may be unpriced.
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 not rated — no public information
I found no public information on pricing — no price, tier or per-employee rate appears anywhere on the homepage, payroll, absence, onboarding, legal or privacy pages I read. An annual invoice for 400 people cannot be computed from public material. 1 2 4 5 6
The Payroll Officer
None of the captured pages shows a price, tier, per-employee rate or billing period; the only pricing statement I found is that P11D forms are generated and submitted at no extra cost. An HR lead cannot compute an annual invoice for their headcount from these pages. 1 4 6
The Works Council Advocate not rated — no public information
We found no public information on pricing — the homepage, payroll, leave-and-absences and onboarding pages show no per-employee rate, tier or setup fee, so neither a buyer nor a works council can compute an annual invoice from what was captured. 1 4 5 6
The Data Protection Officer not rated — no public information
We found no public information on pricing: none of the captured pages — homepage, payroll, leave, onboarding and legal pages — shows a tier, a per-employee price, a billing period or a minimum. An HR lead cannot compute an annual invoice from what was captured. 1 4 5 6
The IT Integrator not rated — no public information
We found no public information on pricing — the captured homepage, payroll, leave and onboarding pages describe modules and services without any per-employee price, tier, billing period or setup fee. An HR lead cannot compute an annual invoice from these pages. 1 4 5 6
The Skeptic
We found no public prices on any captured page: no per-employee figure, no tier, no billing period, no minimum term. The only pricing statement anywhere is that P11Ds are generated and submitted at no extra cost — an inclusion, not a price — and the prospect trail runs through a demo request, so computing the annual invoice stays a sales conversation. 1 3 4
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 6 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 | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hosting location | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Hosting options | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Open source | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data processing agreement | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Transfer impact assessment | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about PayFit
Is PayFit European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where PayFit is based.
Where does PayFit store data?
The default storage location for customer data is not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026. The vendor’s pages mention the EU as hosting location, per the vendor’s page captured 3 Nov 2026.
Does PayFit have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026.
What are the best alternatives to PayFit?
As of 3 Nov 2026, the panel rates Kenjo (3.5/5), rexx systems (3.5/5) and HRworks (3/5) highest among the other 32 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 Kenjo (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: PayFit alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 3 Nov 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Legal entity, Hosting location. 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.
- We could not confirm any pricing information on the vendor’s own pages as captured, so this page shows none rather than a statement we cannot stand behind. Know more? Tell us
- 15 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
- 3 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
- 1 legal 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
- 2 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
Sources (7)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page payfit.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 2 Legal notice — found from the homepage payfit.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy — found from the homepage payfit.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 4 Payroll handoff — found from sitemap payfit.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 5 Absence & working-time — found from sitemap payfit.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 6 Recruiting & onboarding — found from sitemap payfit.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 7 Employee data protection & co-determination — found from sitemap payfit.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →