HR Management
Sage HR
UK / wider Europe Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 1 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by The Sage Group plc · www.sage.com
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 panel's verdict
Sage HR arrives as a payroll brand wearing an HR label: the captured pages show a 'Lohnabrechnung & HR' category and Sage's own payroll products but no personnel file, org chart, custom fields or change history, so digital personnel file & data model sits at 0-1. The strongest criterion is payroll handoff at 2-4, and that spread is a real difference in reading: judges disagree over how much a same-vendor payroll catalogue (Lohnabrechnung Plus, Lohn inside Sage Active) earns when the handoff itself is unevidenced — no DATEV, no export format, no mid-month joiner/leaver handling. Weakest are absence & working-time and recruiting & onboarding, flat zeros: no vacation, sickness or working-time module and no applicant tracking appear anywhere in the evidence. Sovereignty splits 1-3 for a parallel reason — a German imprint (Sage GmbH, Frankfurt, HRB 55497) against a sheet listing data residency, subprocessor exposure and ownership as unknown under a UK plc parent. Employee data protection & co-determination lands 1-2: a corporate GDPR programme, no evidenced product-level controls (no signable DPA, retention or audit log). No price appears on any captured page.
Speaks for it
- Sage sells its own German payroll products (Lohnabrechnung Plus; Lohn inside Sage Active's all-in-one cloud), giving payroll handoff the table's highest band
- The imprint evidences a German contracting entity: Sage GmbH, Frankfurt, HRB 55497, VAT ID DE261020995
- The vendor markets the 2027 digital-payslip mandate, read by judges as awareness of German payroll duties
- A board-supported GDPR project team and a Data Governance Committee since May 2018 are published
- Long-standing German-market footprint: 630 employees at four German sites and a 45+ years claim
Held against it
- Time and absence handling is unevidenced — no vacation, sickness or working-time module anywhere — and absence & working-time scores 0
- Recruiting and onboarding are absent from the captured pages: no applicant tracking, careers page or onboarding checklist
- No HR system of record is described — digital personnel file & data model at 0-1 rests on the 'Lohnabrechnung & HR' category label alone
- The HR-to-payroll handoff is unevidenced: no DATEV or named integration, no export format, no mid-month joiner/leaver handling
- The evidence lists data residency, subprocessor exposure, ownership and legal-entity jurisdiction as unknown, with a UK plc parent (a post-Brexit third country); sovereignty scores 1-3
Best for
- You need German payroll from an established vendor family (Lohnabrechnung Plus; Lohn in Sage Active) and will interrogate the handoff directly with sales before committing
- You want a German contracting entity on paper — the imprint shows Sage GmbH, Frankfurt, HRB 55497 — and will demand hosting-region and subprocessor answers before signature
- You already run other Sage products sized by the evidence (Sage 50 for 1-100 Mitarbeiter, Sage Active for 1-50 Mitarbeiter) and want payroll from the same family
Avoid if
- You must meet the German working-time recording duty (BAG 2022 / ArbZG) or manage vacation and sickness — nothing in the captured pages addresses it, and absence & working-time sits at 0
- You need a personnel-file system of record with org chart, custom fields and change history — the evidence extends only to a category label (digital personnel file & data model 0-1)
- You plan to hire through the tool — applicant tracking, careers pages and onboarding checklists are absent from the evidence
- Your rollout must clear a works council or DPA review with a documented subprocessor list and a stated hosting region — the evidence marks both unknown
The scores
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 — 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.
The People Lead
The entire sheet gives me one word — 'Lohnabrechnung & HR' as a shop category — and nothing on a personnel file, org chart, custom fields or history. For 400 people whose record today lives on a shared drive, nothing here evidences the record moving anywhere. 1
The Payroll Officer
The only thing evidenced is that a 'Lohnabrechnung & HR' category exists in the vendor's navigation; there is not one fact about a personnel file, document storage, org structure, custom fields or change history. For a product in the HR Management category, that silence is the finding — this could be a contact list or it could be nothing, and the evidence doesn't let me tell. 1
The Works Council Advocate
Across all three captured pages there is not one word about a personnel file, document storage, org structure, custom fields or change history — only a generic 'Lohnabrechnung & HR' module category. If the vendor publishes nothing on what is stored, who may read it and whether history survives an edit, there is nothing for a Betriebsrat to review. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The only trace of HR is the marketing category 'Lohnabrechnung & HR'; not one captured word evidences a digital personnel file, document types, org chart, custom fields or dated change history. Missing evidence is a finding — I cannot credit capabilities the vendor's own pages never state, so this sits just above rubric level 0 on the strength of an established HR/payroll portfolio alone. 1
The IT Integrator
The evidence proves only that Sage sells a 'Lohnabrechnung & HR' category; there is zero evidence of a personnel file, org chart, custom fields, or dated history rather than overwrites. I need HR to be the source of truth I can drive accounts from, and there is nothing here I could drive anything from — 1 only because an HR product line demonstrably exists. 1
The Skeptic
The captured pages never name a personnel file, document storage, org chart, custom field or change history — 'HR' exists in this evidence only as a marketing category label next to Lohnabrechnung. A system of record the vendor has not described is a system of record I cannot credit. 1
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 — 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.
The People Lead
The one bright spot: Sage actually runs German payroll — Lohnabrechnung Plus usable from any computer, Lohn built into Sage Active, and a 2027 digital-payslip claim that shows they track German duties. But no export format, no named handoff from the HR side, no mid-month joiner/leaver handling and no pre-payroll check is evidenced, so the month closing 'without chasing anyone' is a hope, not a documented path. 1
The Payroll Officer
Sage sells its own payroll (Lohnabrechnung Plus, and 'Lohn' bundled in Sage Active) and markets the 2027 digital-payslip mandate, so a payroll path exists somewhere in the portfolio — but nothing shows how Sage HR hands data over: no named system, no DATEV, no export format, and nothing on mid-month joiners/leavers, variable pay or backdated changes. A same-vendor payroll product is a lead, not a handoff; the month still closes on faith. 1
The Works Council Advocate
A payroll path exists somewhere in the portfolio — 'Sage Lohnabrechnung Plus' and 'Lohn' inside Sage Active are evidenced — but nothing shows the HR record closing into it: no DATEV or other named integration, no export format, no pre-payroll check, no word on mid-month joiners and leavers. 1
The Data Protection Officer
Sage is fundamentally a payroll house — 'Sage Lohnabrechnung Plus', 'Lohn in einer All-in-One-Cloud' (Sage Active) and digital payroll documents from 2027 are all evidenced — which lifts it above a generic CSV story. But nothing documents the HR-to-payroll handoff: no DATEV or named integration, no export format, no mid-month joiner/leaver handling, no pre-payroll check, so it cannot reach the rubric level 5 'documented export format' bar. 1
The IT Integrator
The vendor's own payroll products are named — Sage Lohnabrechnung Plus and Sage Active with 'Lohn in einer All-in-One-Cloud' — so a payroll path exists somewhere in the family. But the handoff itself is unevidenced: no DATEV, no defined format, no mid-month joiner/leaver handling, and no documented API I could automate against; a sibling product is not an integration. 1
The Skeptic
Sage sells payroll products — Lohnabrechnung Plus usable from any computer, and payroll inside Sage Active's all-in-one cloud — but nothing here evidences an HR system handing anything over: no DATEV, no export format, no mention of variable pay, absences or mid-month joiners and leavers. A payroll brand in the catalogue is not a maintained connector, so this sits between 'no path stated' and 'generic export'. 1
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 — 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.
The People Lead
Not a single fact on vacation, sickness or working time; with the BAG recording duty live, 'Sage Ai automates Routineaufgaben' is not a time clock. Absence handling stays in the spreadsheet, and that is disqualifying for me. 1
The Payroll Officer
The homepage module list contains no absence, vacation or working-time module, and no other evidence touches the subject. That is the 0-anchor: if time and absence exist, they live in a spreadsheet elsewhere, and there is certainly nothing here about the BAG/ArbZG recording duty. 1
The Works Council Advocate
Vacation, sickness and working-time recording are absent from the evidence entirely, so the recording duty from BAG 2022 and ArbZG is not even addressed — let alone whether records are tamper-evident or configurable against monitoring. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The module list contains no absence or working-time module, and no other captured page mentions vacation, sickness, breaks or the ArbZG recording duty. If working-time recording appears nowhere in what the vendor publishes about itself, I must treat it as absent, and the anchors put that silence at 0. 1
The IT Integrator
Nothing: no vacation requests, no sickness, no working-time capture, and no mention of the ArbZG recording duty anywhere in the evidence. An entitlement engine or timer that isn't evidenced does not exist, and a product silent on the German recording duty gets no benefit of the doubt. 1
The Skeptic
Vacation, sickness and working-time recording are absent even as labels in the captured evidence, so there is nothing to assess against the BAG/ArbZG recording duty. If the product met a German legal obligation, a German-market homepage would say so. 1
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 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.
The People Lead
No applicant tracking, no careers page, no onboarding checklist — the join path is not even hinted at anywhere in the captured pages. Hiring stays in the shared inbox. 1
The Payroll Officer
Not a word about applicant tracking, careers pages, contracts or onboarding anywhere in the evidence; the product modules listed stop at accounting, ERP, payroll/HR, AI and e-invoicing. Hiring evidently happens outside whatever this product is. 1
The Works Council Advocate
No applicant tracking, no careers page, no onboarding checklist appears anywhere in the evidence; the join path evidently lives outside this product, and applicant data handling is therefore invisible to me. 1
The Data Protection Officer
No applicant tracking, no careers page, no onboarding checklist anywhere in the evidence — hiring is simply not addressed. Applicant data is the category I police hardest, and there is nothing here whose retention or deletion could even be assessed; rubric level 0 applies. 1
The IT Integrator
No applicant tracking, no onboarding, no evidence a hired candidate becomes an employee record — let alone an account. My bar is whether onboarding can create the account; the evidence doesn't even show a checklist, so this scores at the shared-inbox floor. 1
The Skeptic
No applicant tracking, onboarding checklist, careers page or contract signing appears anywhere; the module list runs Buchhaltung, ERP, Lohnabrechnung & HR, KI and E-Rechnung. The join path is not underpriced here — it is unevidenced entirely. 1
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 — 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.
The People Lead
Sage publishes a board-backed GDPR project team and a Data Governance Committee since 2018, which tells me they care about their own compliance — it tells my works council nothing. No signable DPA on the site as captured, no role model, no retention periods, no deletion executed, just a 'highest industry standards' security sentence. 1 3
The Payroll Officer
What is evidenced is corporate posture: a GDPR project team backed by the board and a Data Governance Committee since 2018, plus a vague 'highest industry standards' security claim. No signable DPA, no retention periods, no role model, no deletion capability, no audit log — a works council would have nothing to review but good intentions. 1 3
The Works Council Advocate
The GDPR page documents Sage's internal programme — a data governance committee and a board-backed project team — but says nothing about the product: no retention periods, no executable deletion, no role model, no audit log of who read what, and no way shown to switch off 'Sage Copilot' or 'Sage Ai' with its real-time insights into all areas of the company. An AI assistant that watches everything and cannot demonstrably be disabled or scoped is exactly what fails a §87 review. 1 3
The Data Protection Officer
The GDPR page evidences a Data Governance Committee and a board-backed GDPR project team — corporate posture, not product capability: no signable DPA is published in these pages, no retention periods, no deletion that executes, no role model, no audit log, no field-level access. An unpublished DPA is a finding in itself, and 'Daten nach höchsten Branchenstandards geschützt' is a marketing sentence, not a control I can verify. 1 3
The IT Integrator
E3 describes Sage's own GDPR programme — a board-backed project team and a Data Governance Committee — but that is the company's compliance posture, not the product's. No published signable DPA is evidenced, no role model, no stated retention, no executable deletion, no audit log; 1 rather than 0 only because the vendor visibly engages with GDPR instead of ignoring it. 3
The Skeptic
What the evidence offers is corporate posture, not product behaviour: a board-supported GDPR project team, a Data Governance Committee since May 2018 and a Marketplace GDPR section, plus a 'highest industry standards' slogan. No retention periods, no executable deletion, no role model, no audit log and no signable DPA — a governance committee does not protect a single field in a personnel file. 3 1
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.
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.
The People Lead
The contract would sit with Sage GmbH, Frankfurt, HRB 55497 and VAT ID in the impressum, which I like. But the parent is a UK plc, the hosting region is unstated and not a single subprocessor is named in anything captured — that lands on the anchor where the subprocessor list is simply absent. 1 2
The Payroll Officer
The one solid fact is the German imprint: Sage GmbH in Frankfurt, registered at the Frankfurt court with a German VAT ID. But every attribute that decides the question — hosting region, data residency, subcontractor chain, which entity actually contracts for the cloud product — is unknown, the parent is a UK third-country group, and the GDPR page names not a single subprocessor. I cannot tell my tax adviser or my works council where the data sits. 2 3
The Works Council Advocate
The imprint does evidence a German contracting entity (Sage GmbH, Frankfurt, HRB 55497), but data residency, subprocessors and ownership are all listed as unknown, and the parent is a UK plc — a third country since Brexit. Where my employees' data physically sits and who processes it is undocumented, and undocumented is unacceptable for a co-determined rollout. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
The imprint gives a fully registered German contracting entity — Sage GmbH, HRB 55497, Frankfurt — which is genuinely valuable, but the group is UK-headquartered (a third country post-Brexit) and data residency, subprocessor exposure and ownership are all marked unknown. Without a published subprocessor list and a stated hosting region, no buyer — and no works council — can document its own processing chain from these pages. 2
The IT Integrator
The imprint does show Sage GmbH, a German-registered entity with HRB and VAT ID, but the group parent sits in the UK (a post-Brexit third country) and the pipeline could not confirm data residency, ownership, or a single named subprocessor. For the most sensitive data a company holds, undocumented is unweighable — the buyer is asked to assume, and I won't credit assumption. 2 1
The Skeptic
Hosting region, subprocessor chain and the contracting entity for this product are all unconfirmed, under a UK plc parent in a post-Brexit third country; the one EU anchor is a German GmbH in an imprint that nothing ties to the product contract or the data. 'Daten nach höchsten Branchenstandards geschützt' tells a buyer about the standards, not where the data sits. 2 1
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 — 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.
The People Lead
No price, no tier, no per-employee figure, no billing period, no term — the captured homepage sells awards and 2 million customers but not one number. I cannot compute an annual invoice; I can only book a sales call. 1
The Payroll Officer
The homepage segments products by headcount (1–50 for Sage Active, 1–100 for Sage 50, 50+ for Intacct) and publishes no price for any of them. No entry price, no per-employee maths, no billing period — the invoice is a sales conversation, full stop. 1
The Works Council Advocate
No price of any kind appears on the captured pages — no per-employee rate, no tier, no billing period, no setup or minimum terms. An HR lead cannot compute even a rough annual invoice from public pages. 1
The Data Protection Officer
No price, tier, billing period, minimum or setup fee appears anywhere in the captured pages; only headcount targeting ('1-50', '1-100', '50+ Mitarbeiter') that steers every buyer into a sales conversation. That is the definition of rubric level 0. 1
The IT Integrator
No price of any kind appears in the evidence — not per employee, not per tier, not even a starting figure, despite headcount targets being stated for Sage 50, Sage Active and Intacct. Every tier is a sales conversation; an HR lead cannot compute the invoice for any headcount. 1
The Skeptic
Not one price, tier, billing period, minimum term or setup fee appears in the captured pages — Sage 50, Sage Active, Sage Intacct and Lohnabrechnung Plus are positioned by employee-count ranges and customer testimonials, never by number. An HR lead cannot compute even a starting invoice from public evidence like this. 1
European sovereignty — proven facts
1 of 4 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 | Incorporated in DE ⚠ unverified | 3/3 pts | 2 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 15 Sep 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Ownership. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- Weak sourcing — Legal entity. Das Impressum betrifft nur die deutsche Tochter Sage GmbH, während der Seitenfooter die britische Mutter Sage Group plc nennt.
- 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 found no public information on pricing on the pages we read (sage.com/de-de, sage.com/de-de/impressum, sage.com/de-at/dsgvo). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- 3 legal 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 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
- 1 compliance 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
- 1 support 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
- 1 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (3)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.sage.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Imprint www.sage.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.sage.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →