whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

HR Management

PayFit

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 PayFit · payfit.com

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

Link to this page

PayFit: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai PayFit: 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.

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

PayFit alternatives, European ones first →

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 Treats an unpublished DPA as a finding.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

Panel median The Data Protection Officer 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 Data Protection Officer
Digital personnel file & data model 1.5 of 5 1.5 of 5
Payroll handoff 4.5 of 5 4.5 of 5
Absence & working-time 2 of 5 2 of 5
Recruiting & onboarding 1 of 5 1 of 5
Employee data protection & co-determination 2 of 5 1.5 of 5
European sovereignty 2 of 5 1.5 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 — 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.

Report an error

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

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 — 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.

Report an error

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

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 — 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.

Report an error

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

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 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.

Report an error

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

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 — 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.

Report an error

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

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. 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.

Report an error

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

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 — 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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

0 of 6 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.

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

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 PayFit? 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 payfit.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Legal notice — found from the homepage payfit.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Privacy policy — found from the homepage payfit.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Payroll handoff — found from sitemap payfit.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Absence & working-time — found from sitemap payfit.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Recruiting & onboarding — found from sitemap payfit.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Employee data protection & co-determination — found from sitemap payfit.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →