whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

HR Management

Personio

EU-Made 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 Personio SE & Co. KG · www.personio.de

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 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

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

The API module list shows the bones of a real system of record — Document Management, Persons, Employments, Org Units, Legal Entities, Cost Centres, Salary Bands — which is more than a flat contact list. But the captured pages show nothing on change history, effective dating, contract versioning, e-signature or field-level permissions; I found no public information on any of it, so I credit structure without evidenced history. 2

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 only payroll statement in the captures is a module in the API list named 'Payroll Integrations (Compensations)' — an object a developer could query, not a maintained connector to a named payroll system. No DATEV or other named system, no export format, no mid-month joiner or leaver handling and no pre-payroll check appears anywhere in what was captured; that is thinner than even a generic export claim. 2

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

This is the best-evidenced area: absence periods with types, approvals and certificate uploads, attendance periods for working time, and the vendor positioning itself as the source of truth for absences created by HR or employees. Missing is everything that makes it compliant rather than merely present — no entitlement calculation, no carry-over, no public-holiday or break rules, and nothing on the German working-time recording duty or tamper-evidence of records. 1 2

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 recruiting API exposes candidates, applications, jobs and categories with working pagination and filtering, so applicant tracking exists as a data model. But no careers page, structured stages, rejection handling, scheduling, scorecards or e-signature appears in the captures, and there is not one word about onboarding or the handover into an employee record — the only candid limitation note is that applications return neither custom attributes nor tags. 2 3

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

On retention, deletion, role separation, audit logging and a data-processing agreement the captured pages say nothing at all — I found no public information on any of it. The only access control evidenced is API-level Bearer or JWT authentication with fine-grained scopes such as a recruiting read permission, which governs developer access, not HR users reading personnel files. 2 3

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 contracting entity is a German company seated in Munich, which places it above a US-entity floor. But I found no public information on hosting region, data-centre provider or a single named subprocessor in any captured page, and nothing on sovereignty is documented beyond that German address. 1 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 — 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

No price of any kind appears in the captured pages — no per-employee figure, no tier, no billing period, no setup fee, no minimum, no VAT treatment. An HR lead reading what was captured cannot compute any part of an annual invoice, which is the bottom of the scale. 1 2 3

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 Personio? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (3)

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

  1. 1 Absence & working-time — found from sitemap developer.personio.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Recruiting & onboarding — found from sitemap developer.personio.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Recruiting & onboarding — found from sitemap developer.personio.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →