HR Management
SD Worx
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by SD Worx Group · www.sdworx.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.
SD Worx at a glance
- Vendor
- SD Worx Group
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates SD Worx 1.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. SD Worx Group sells HR and payroll services to large enterprises across Europe, and the bench reads it as a payroll house first: payroll readiness is the strongest criterion at 5-7, resting on a local ECP framework with add-ons on SAP technology, named payroll products for Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark, and integration services for banks and authorities. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 22 Sep 2026 to 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
SD Worx Group sells HR and payroll services to large enterprises across Europe, and the bench reads it as a payroll house first: payroll readiness is the strongest criterion at 5-7, resting on a local ECP framework with add-ons on SAP technology, named payroll products for Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark, and integration services for banks and authorities. The weakest ground is recruiting and onboarding at 0-1, where judges found no public information on applicant tracking or onboarding; core HR records follows at 1-2, the personnel file itself — document storage, org structure, custom fields, dated history — undocumented. Time and absence scores 2-4 on a named Time product whose stated purpose is absence and vacation management. Employee data governance drew identical 4s: the published record of processing states per-service retention, but keeps the customer ultimately responsible and disclaims liability if retention is lowered. Sovereignty scores 0-2, with residency, ownership and subprocessors all unknown. No criterion drew a meaningful judge split; the 5-7 payroll spread reflects the weight given to the undocumented handoff mechanics. No public prices appear.
Speaks for it
- Payroll readiness scores 5-7, the strongest criterion, on named payroll products for Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark plus a local ECP framework on SAP technology
- Integration services for banks and authorities — AIS, Bank Service, Authority Connect — are documented with the payroll offer
- A product-specific record of processing publishes per-service retention periods, such as 18 months for file transfer and 7 years for the bank service
- Deletion timing is stated concretely: backups are affected one month after the routine runs, and log deletion must be ordered separately
- An on-premise delivery option sits alongside cloud and business process outsourcing
Held against it
- Recruiting and onboarding scores 0-1, with no public information on applicant tracking or onboarding in any captured page
- Core HR records scores 1-2; the personnel file's document storage, org structure, custom fields and dated history are undocumented
- Sovereignty scores 0-2, and the published attributes — contracting-entity jurisdiction, ownership, data residency, subprocessor exposure — read unknown
- The payroll handoff mechanics are unpublished: no public information on pre-payroll checks, mid-month joiners and leavers, retro-accounting or a named German system such as DATEV
- The customer remains ultimately responsible for retention, with no liability assumed if retention times are lowered
Best for
- You run payroll for Nordic entities in Norway, Sweden, Finland or Denmark, where the vendor's named country payroll engines and bank and authority integration services are the centre of the offer
- You are a large enterprise in Europe buying tailored HR and payroll services, which matches the vendor's stated market focus and its offer of custom tailoring on request
- Your payroll landscape is SAP-based and you want a local ECP framework with add-ons on SAP technology
- You need a published, per-service retention schedule as a starting point for a data-protection or works-council review
Avoid if
- You must evidence German working-time recording compliance; time and absence scores 2-4 with no public information on working-time capture of the kind the recording duty requires
- You must document hosting region, contracting entity, ownership and the subprocessor chain for a regulator or works council; sovereignty scores 0-2 with the published attributes reading unknown
- You need to inspect the personnel record itself — documents, org structure, dated contract and salary history — before signing; core HR records scores 1-2 with the file undocumented
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Digital personnel file & data model | 1 of 5 |
| Payroll handoff | 3 of 5 |
| Absence & working-time | 1.5 of 5 |
| Recruiting & onboarding | 0 of 5 |
| Employee data protection & co-determination | 2 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 0.5 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 — 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 pages list an HRM suite — People for employee administration, plus Personec HR, SHR, Salary Review and more — and stress that the products are highly configurable, but the personnel file itself stays a black box: we found no public information on document storage, an org chart, custom fields, or dated history of contract and salary changes. For someone replacing eleven spreadsheets, that is product names on a shelf, not a record I could hand an auditor. 3
The Payroll Officer
The suite list names People for employee administration and Talent for appraisals, and that is all there is to go on: we found no public information on the personnel file itself — document storage, org structure, custom fields, or a dated history of contract and salary changes. A payroll close stands on that history, and none is shown. 3
The Works Council Advocate
The processing records name an employee-administration product alongside salary review, competence and performance modules, but we found no public information on the personnel file itself — document types, org structure, custom fields, or whether changes keep dated history rather than overwrite. I cannot co-determine access to a record whose shape the captured pages never show. 3
The Data Protection Officer
The catalogue names an employee-administration suite — People, HR, Personec HR, Salary Review, Competence, SD Worx Perform — but the captured pages describe modules, not the file. I found no public information on document storage, org structure, custom fields, or change history, so I cannot verify whether contract and salary changes are kept rather than overwritten. 3
The IT Integrator
An employee administration product and a long HRM suite list are on the page, but we found no public information on document types, org structure, custom fields, or effective-dated history — the things that would make this record the identity source I provision accounts from. 3
The Skeptic
The captured pages name an employee-administration product inside a sprawling module catalogue, plus one line saying products are 'highly configurable and may contain more data than initially intended' — and that is the entire story on the personnel file. We found no public information on document storage, org structure, custom fields, or whether contract and salary history is kept rather than overwritten. 3
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
Payroll is evidently the centre of gravity here: a page promising flawless payroll every month, named payroll products for Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark, a local ECP framework on SAP technology, and integration services for banks and authorities. But the pages stop at product names and service claims — we found no public information on variable pay, mid-month joiners and leavers, a documented pre-payroll check, or a DATEV and Lohn und Gehalt path for a German buyer, so I cannot yet tell whether the month closes without chasing anyone. 2 3
The Payroll Officer
Payroll is plainly this vendor's trade — a local ECP framework with add-ons for payroll processing on SAP technology, named country engines for Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark, and integration services for banks and authorities — so the month does not leave as a spreadsheet somebody retypes. But the promise of flawless payroll every month comes without the mechanics: we found no public information on variable pay handling, mid-month joiners and leavers, backdated corrections, a pre-payroll check, or any named German payroll system. 2 3
The Works Council Advocate
Payroll is unmistakably the vendor's centre — a page promising "flawless payroll every single month", an ECP framework with add-ons on SAP technology, named payroll products for Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark, and integration services for banks and authorities. But the handoff itself stays undocumented: we found no public information on mid-month joiners and leavers, variable pay, a pre-payroll check, or any named German system such as DATEV. A payroll house with an unpublished handoff lands just above the middle. 2 3
The Data Protection Officer
Payroll is plainly this vendor's core business: named payroll engines for Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark, an SAP-based payroll framework with add-ons, integration services for banks and authorities, and a business-process-outsourcing delivery option. What I found no public information on is the closing discipline — pre-payroll checks, approval and lock before transmission, and retro-accounting for backdated changes. 2 3
The IT Integrator
Payroll is unmistakably the core of this vendor, with named payroll engines across the Nordics and bank, authority and file-transfer integration services, so the month need not end in a retyped spreadsheet. What the pages do is sell the service rather than document the handoff: we found no public information on a pre-payroll check, mid-month joiners and leavers, retro-accounting, or a documented export format such as DATEV. Integration as described is file transfer (AIS, SFTP) rather than a documented API, which for a suite this payroll-centric is a gap I weigh. 2 3
The Skeptic
Payroll is plainly the vendor's centre of gravity: a dedicated page selling an SAP-based ECP framework with add-ons and 850 certified consultants, named payroll products for Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark, and integration services for banks and authorities. What the pages do not show is the handoff mechanics — nothing on pre-payroll checks, mid-month joiners and leavers, retro-accounting or the tax adviser's own access — and no German payroll path is evidenced at all. 2 3
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
A Time product is named for absence and vacation management, alongside T&A and Personec Time, but that is a label rather than a capability: we found no public information on entitlement automation, carry-over, sickness recording, an absence calendar, or any per-employee working-time report. Nothing on the German recording duty either, which for me is the whole point of the module. 3
The Payroll Officer
The product list includes Time, T&A and Personec Time with the stated purpose "absence and vacation management", so this is more than nothing. We found no public information on automatic entitlement, carry-over, sickness recording, or working-time capture, and for a German buyer we found no public information on compliance with the recording duty under the ArbZG. 3
The Works Council Advocate
Products named Time, T&A and Personec Time carry the stated purpose "absence and vacation management", so absence handling exists somewhere in the suite — but that is all the pages say. We found no public information on entitlement calculation, carry-over, sickness recording, or working-time capture that would meet the German recording duty, and nothing on what the time data feeds or who may monitor it. 3
The Data Protection Officer
Time, T&A and Personec Time appear in the catalogue with the stated purpose 'Absence and vacation management', so absence and working-time products exist in the line-up. I found no public information on entitlement calculation, carry-over, sickness handling, or working-time recording designed to meet the German recording duty, so I cannot verify an employer's statutory position from these pages. 3
The IT Integrator
Dedicated Time and time-and-attendance products exist with a stated purpose of absence and vacation management, which clears the spreadsheet bar. We found no public information on automatic entitlement, carry-over, sickness handling, holiday calendars, or any statement about the German working-time recording duty, so I cannot credit compliance the pages do not show. 3
The Skeptic
The record of processing names a Time module whose stated purpose is 'absence and vacation management', and T&A appears in the product list, but that is the whole of it. We found no public information on entitlement calculation, carry-over, sickness handling, or working-time recording of the kind that would answer the German recording duty. 3
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
We found no public information on applicant tracking or onboarding anywhere in the captured pages — the HRM suite runs from employee administration through performance, competence and salary review, with nothing on the path from vacancy to signed contract to a person set up on day one. Hiring in a shared inbox is exactly what I am trying to escape, so this is a flat zero from me. 2 3
The Payroll Officer
We found no public information on applicant tracking or onboarding: the suite product list contains no recruiting product, and the record of processing registers purposes for analytics, expense, payslip, people, talent and time with no applicant data among them. On this evidence the join path lives outside the system. 2 3
The Works Council Advocate
We found no public information on applicant tracking or onboarding in any captured page: the product list covers HR administration, payroll, time, talent, expense and analytics, and the service pages speak only of HR and payroll. The join path from vacancy to signed contract to a person with an account on day one is entirely invisible to me as a reviewer. 2 3
The Data Protection Officer
I found no public information on applicant tracking or onboarding: the published product catalogue names no recruiting product and the processing purposes name no applicant data. For people who apply and are never hired, the published retention schedule covers integration, bank and payslip services and states no applicant retention period, so I cannot verify that applicant data deletes itself at any stated deadline. 3
The IT Integrator
The product list and stated purposes run from employee administration to performance and expenses, and we found no public information on applicant tracking or onboarding — no careers page, no stages, no contract signing. I judge onboarding by whether it can create the account, and nothing captured here evidences a join path at all. 3
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
The GDPR product-specific page is unusually concrete: retention per service — eighteen months for file transfers, seven years for the bank service, eight years for Verkkopalkka payslips — plus backup deletion timing, the rule that log data needs a separate deletion order, and the customer staying responsible for validating periods. But we found no public information on a published signable DPA, roles configurable per module, an audit log of who read what, or subject-rights support, and the deletion carve-outs mean I could not yet take this to a works council with confidence. 3
The Payroll Officer
The published record of processing is genuine documentation: per-service retention periods (18 months for file transfers, 7 years for the bank service, 8 years for Finnish internet-bank payslips), backups affected one month after the routine, logs deleted only on separate order, and third-party sharing only under a legal obligation delegated by contract. What we found no public information on is everything a works council probes — role separation, an audit log of who read what, subject-rights handling — and the customer is told they remain ultimately responsible for validating the correct retention periods. 3
The Works Council Advocate
The product-specific processing records are a real starting point for a works-council review — retention per service is published (eighteen months for file transfer, seven years for the bank service, eight years for the Finnish payslip product) and backup and log deletion timing is stated rather than merely promised. But the customer is declared ultimately responsible for retention, no liability is accepted if periods are lowered, and data in logs survives a deletion unless separately ordered. We found no public information on role separation, on a log of who read what, or on whether the analytics and performance-appraisal purposes can be switched off — the first questions I must ask under §87. 3
The Data Protection Officer
Credit where due: the published record of processing states retention per service and is candid that backups survive routine deletion by a month and that log deletion must be ordered separately. But I found no published data processing agreement and no subprocessor list on the captured pages, the customer is told they remain ultimately responsible for validating retention, and liability for shortened retention is disclaimed — this is retention documented, not retention that executes. 3
The IT Integrator
The vendor publishes product-specific processing information with a retention period per service and describes deletion concretely, including backups catching up a month later and log data needing a separate deletion order — that is real published documentation. But we found no public information on role separation, an audit log of who read what, or a signable data-processing agreement, and the pages place ultimate responsibility for retention periods on the customer. 3
The Skeptic
This is the one place with substance: a product-specific GDPR record of processing states concrete retention periods per integration service, deletion timing for backups, and the explicit note that log data needs a separate deletion order. Against that, the customer is told they remain 'ultimately responsible' for retention with a liability disclaimer attached, and we found no public information on role models, field-level permissions, audit logs, or monitoring limits a works council could negotiate. 3 4
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
Sovereignty is essentially undocumented on the captured pages: we found no public information on hosting region, contracting entity, ownership, or the subprocessor chain — every one of the published attributes comes back unknown. The only European signal is a team of over 850 SAP-certified consultants said to be located in Europe, which tells me nothing about where my people's data actually sits. 2
The Payroll Officer
We found no public information on data residency, the contracting entity, or any named subprocessor — the integration services "Bank Service" and "Authority Connect" are named but their providers and locations are not, and every sovereignty attribute reads unknown. For a buyer, an undocumented answer is no answer. 3 1
The Works Council Advocate
The contracting entity, hosting region and every subprocessor are unanswered in the captured pages; the only signals are consultants "located in Europe" — staff, not data — and a delivery-type list that includes on-premise alongside cloud and outsourcing. Third-party sharing is described only as a legal-obligation condition with no processors named. A data path I cannot see is a data path I cannot approve. 2 3
The Data Protection Officer
I found no public information on where data is hosted, which entity contracts, who owns the vendor, or who the subprocessors are. The only signals are a Europe-based consultant team and an on-premise delivery option; beyond those, the data path a buyer must document for a works council or a regulator is entirely undocumented. 2 3
The IT Integrator
For contracting entity, hosting region and subprocessor chain we found no public information in the captured pages; the only European signals are consultants located in Europe and Nordic payroll products, which is not evidence of where data sits. An on-premises delivery option is offered, which sovereign buyers will notice, but it does not document the chain. 2 3
The Skeptic
Every sovereignty attribute on record is unknown — contracting entity, ownership, data residency, subprocessors — and the captured pages never state where personnel data is hosted. The only European credentials on show are 850 consultants 'located in Europe' and a market focus on European large enterprises, which speaks to sales coverage, not to where the data sleeps. 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
We found no public pricing information on any captured page — no per-employee figure, no bundle, no billing period, no minimums. I could not even begin to compute an annual invoice for four hundred people, so every number here starts as a sales conversation. 1 2 3 1
The Payroll Officer
We found no public pricing information at all: no per-employee price, no tier, no billing period, no setup fee or minimum term. Everything is presented as tailored and custom-quoted, so an HR lead cannot compute even a rough annual invoice from what is published. 2 1
The Works Council Advocate
No price, tier, billing period or per-employee figure appears in the captured pages; the offer is framed as tailored services — "we tailor with you!" — with a master agreement as the reference point shown for the relationship. We found no public information from which an HR lead could compute an annual invoice for a given headcount. 1 2 1
The Data Protection Officer
I found no public prices on any captured page — no per-employee figure, no tier names, no billing period, and no setup fee or minimum terms. An HR lead cannot compute any part of the real annual invoice from what is published; every number is a sales conversation. 1 2 1
The IT Integrator
We found no public information on pricing — no per-employee rate, no tier, no billing period — and the pitch is tailored services for large enterprises with custom tailoring on request, which reads as a sales conversation by design. An HR lead cannot compute even a rough annual invoice from what is public. 2
The Skeptic
No price appears anywhere in the captured pages — no tier, no per-employee rate, no billing period, no setup or minimum term, nothing an HR lead could compute an annual invoice from. For a suite listing more than a dozen named products across delivery types, not one carries a public number. 1 2 1
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 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 | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about SD Worx
Is SD Worx European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where SD Worx is based.
Where does SD Worx store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does SD Worx have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to SD Worx?
As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates rexx systems (3.5/5), HRworks (3/5) and Kenjo (3/5) highest among the other 30 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 rexx systems (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: SD Worx alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 22 Sep 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- 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 (sdworx.com, sdworx.com/en-en/flawless-payroll-every-single-month, sdworx.com/en-en/gdpr-rop-product-specific-information, sdworx.com/en-en/gdpr-rop-technical-and-organisational-measures). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- 22 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
- 2 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
- 2 hosting 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
- 2 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
- 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
- 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 (4)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.sdworx.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Payroll handoff — found from sitemap www.sdworx.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Employee data protection & co-determination — found from sitemap www.sdworx.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Employee data protection & co-determination — found from sitemap www.sdworx.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →