Recruiting
Breezy HR
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Breezy HR, Inc. · breezy.hr
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.
Breezy HR at a glance
- Vendor
- Breezy HR, Inc.
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Breezy HR 2/5, the mean of 6 judges. Breezy HR scored strongest on applicant data governance: candidate consent per position with an EU default-on, automatic erasure the first Sunday 14 days after consent expires, and a data-subject request form with a 30-day response target. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 20 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 21 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Breezy HR scored strongest on applicant data governance: candidate consent per position with an EU default-on, automatic erasure the first Sunday 14 days after consent expires, and a data-subject request form with a 30-day response target. Integrations and handover runs 5-6, on fifteen named HRIS partners fed from the Hired stage and personal access tokens with expiry and invalidation on user removal. Candidate pipeline is configurable, with multiple pipelines on the Growth, Business and Pro plans and automated stage actions, and job distribution covers sixteen named free boards plus premium postings bought through an in-app cart. AI screening control spreads 4-6: the AI tools run on the customer's own criteria behind admin purchase and enablement, but we found no public information naming the model provider or an EU AI Act position. Sovereignty scores 0-1 — the contracting entity is Breezy HR, Inc. of Jacksonville, Florida, under EU-US Data Privacy Framework certification — and we found no public information on hosting location or subprocessors. No German board appears on the captured lists, and no price figure for any plan appears on the captured pages.
Speaks for it
- Applicant data governance scored 5-6, on per-position candidate consent defaulting on for EU positions, automatic erasure the first Sunday 14 days after consent expires, and a data-subject request form with a 30-day response target
- Integrations and handover scored 5-6, with fifteen named HRIS partners moving hires out of the Hired stage and API personal access tokens that expire and are invalidated when a user is removed
- AI sourcing and interview analysis run on the customer's own criteria with a configurable minimum match score, each tool purchasable and enabled only by an admin
- Pipelines are admin-editable with drag-and-drop stage ordering, per-stage visibility and automated stage actions, and multiple pipelines on the Growth, Business and Pro plans
- Distribution spans a custom career-site builder, sixteen named free boards and premium postings in five categories bought through an in-app shopping cart with the invoice on the billing page
Held against it
- Sovereignty scored 0-1: the contracting entity is Breezy HR, Inc. of Jacksonville, Florida, under EU-US Data Privacy Framework certification with a German EEA representative, and we found no public information on hosting location or on subprocessors beyond the payment providers named in the privacy policy
- The captured board lists name no German board — no Bundesagentur für Arbeit, StepStone or XING — so the boards that matter for German locations are absent
- None of the fifteen HRIS partners is a DACH-standard system such as Personio, DATEV or SAP SuccessFactors, and we found no public information on SSO, SCIM, e-signature, webhooks or published API limits
- We found no public information on a per-candidate record of who moved them and why, on structured scorecards outside the paid interview analysis, or on requisition and offer approvals
- We found no public information naming the AI model provider, where AI and CV processing run, whether candidates are informed of the analysis, or any EU AI Act position
Best for
- You hand new hires into one of the fifteen named HRIS partners — ADP Workforce Now, BambooHR, Rippling and peers — from the Hired stage, without retyping
- Your talent-pool retention depends on candidate consent with expiry, and you need automatic erasure and consent-status filtering rather than manual deletion alone
- You want AI sourcing and interview analysis scored against your own criteria, with nothing running until an admin purchases and enables the tool
- You publish across many boards at once — sixteen named free boards plus premium postings in five categories — and want premium booking and invoicing inside the system
Avoid if
- Your procurement requires a European processor or a stated hosting location: the contract is with Breezy HR, Inc. of Jacksonville, Florida, under EU-US Data Privacy Framework certification, and we found no public information on hosting location or the subprocessor list
- You hire primarily for German locations: no German free or premium board is named, and the HRIS partners include no DACH-standard system
- Your works council will not agree to AI screening without a named model provider, a processing location and a published EU AI Act position — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Applicant management & hiring workflow | 2 of 5 |
| Multiposting, career page & candidate experience | 2 of 5 |
| Retention, deletion & talent-pool consent | 2.5 of 5 |
| AI screening transparency & control | 2.5 of 5 |
| HR handover, integrations & API | 3 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 0.5 of 5 |
Applicant management & hiring workflow
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The daily work of hiring: pipeline stages per job, collaboration with hiring managers, structured evaluation, interview scheduling and candidate communication — judged on whether a decision is documented rather than merely made.
0 — An inbox of applications with a status field; no stages per job, no shared evaluation and no record of who decided what.
3 — A fixed pipeline with drag-and-drop stages and email templates, but hiring managers see everything or nothing, and evaluation is free-text comments.
5 — Configurable pipelines per job, hiring-manager access limited to their own vacancies, structured scorecards, interview scheduling with calendar integration, and templated candidate emails in German.
8 — Approval workflows for requisitions and offers, role-based access per team and location, structured interview kits, bulk actions with automated but reviewable candidate communication, and a history on each candidate of every stage change and who made it.
10 — The pipeline is an auditable record of a fair process: every decision attributed and reasoned, evaluation criteria fixed before applications arrive, reporting on time-to-hire and drop-off per stage, and the full history exportable per candidate for an AGG dispute.
The Talent Acquisition Lead
The pipeline is genuinely built out: stages are typed and configurable, multiple pipelines exist on paid plans, stage actions automate emails, scheduling and feedback collection, and interview analysis scores candidates against fixed criteria rather than free-text comments. But we found no public information on hiring-manager access limited to their own vacancies, offer approval workflows, a per-candidate history of who changed which stage, or German-language candidate emails — and without an attributed decision trail I cannot defend a rejection in an AGG dispute. 1 3 4 9 10
The Employer Branding Manager
Pipelines are real: default stages plus admin-editable custom pipelines with drag-and-drop ordering, per-stage visibility and automated stage actions, and automation for pre-screening, emails, scheduling and feedback collection. The gap to a documented decision is that we found no public information on calendar-tied scheduling, structured scorecards outside the paid AI analysis, or any record of who moved a candidate and why. 1 3 4
The Data Protection Officer
Pipelines are genuinely configurable — admins add, reorder and rename stages, set stage visibility and automated stage actions, and paid plans get multiple pipelines — with automated pre-screening, emails, scheduling and team feedback collection claimed on the homepage. But we found no public information on hiring-manager access limited to their own vacancies, on structured scorecards, or on a per-candidate record of who moved them and why; nothing here evidences a decision being documented rather than merely made. 1 3 4
The Works Council Advocate
Pipelines are genuinely configurable — admins set stages, stage visibility and automated actions, paid plans add multiple pipelines, and internal applicants get their own stage type, which I note with approval. We found no public information on structured scorecards, on a record of who moved a candidate at each stage and why, or on requisition and offer approvals — exactly the decision trail a works council would need to co-determine. 1 3 4
The HR IT Integrator
Pipelines are real and configurable — multiple pipelines on Growth, Business and Pro, drag-and-drop stage ordering, per-stage visibility and automated stage actions, with admin permission required to edit the settings and assigned-position scoping visible in the sourcing permissions. But we found no public information on structured scorecards, a per-candidate history of who changed what, or approval workflows, so the documented decision record this criterion turns on is not evidenced. 1 3 4
The Skeptic
The pipeline mechanics are documented in real depth — stage types, drag-and-drop ordering, per-stage visibility, automated stage actions, multiple pipelines on the Growth, Business and Pro plans — and hiring managers can be limited to vacancies they are assigned. But I found no public information on who recorded which stage change, on approval steps for requisitions or offers, or on structured scorecards outside the paid interview-analysis add-on, so this is a well-documented tool rather than an attributable record of decisions. 1 3 4 9
Multiposting, career page & candidate experience
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Getting a vacancy in front of the right people and letting them apply: job-board distribution for the German market, the career page, and an application process that does not lose candidates on a phone.
0 — No career page and no job-board distribution; vacancies are posted by hand elsewhere.
3 — A basic hosted job list and free aggregator feeds, with no named German boards, and an application form that requires an account or a desktop.
5 — A branded career page, multiposting to named boards including the Bundesagentur für Arbeit and at least one major German paid board, Google for Jobs markup, and mobile application without an account.
8 — Multiposting with booking and budget tracking per board from inside the system, source attribution per applicant, career page in several languages with an embeddable widget, accessibility stated, and an application form configurable per job.
10 — Distribution is measured, not only broadcast: cost and applicants per channel reported, the career page meets a stated accessibility standard, one-click or CV-parse application on mobile, and candidates can see their own status and withdraw themselves.
The Talent Acquisition Lead
Multiposting is real and broad — sixteen free boards named plus premium boards bought through an in-system shopping cart with the invoice on the billing page — but no German board appears anywhere on the named free or premium lists, so for my German locations the boards that matter would still be booked by hand. The career site is a custom builder with nothing stated on languages or accessibility, and we found no public information on source attribution per applicant or a mobile application flow without an account. 1 5 6
The Employer Branding Manager
The career-site builder and one-click distribution to 50+ boards, with premium postings bought through an in-app cart and automatic Indeed sync, is more than a basic job list. But the published board lists name no German boards — we found no public information on the Bundesagentur für Arbeit, StepStone or XING — and we found no public information on mobile application without an account, cost per channel, or career-site accessibility. 1 5 6
The Data Protection Officer
The distribution network is broad and named: sixteen free boards including Indeed and Google Jobs, premium boards in five categories bought through an in-app shopping cart with an invoice on the billing page, and a custom career site builder. Yet the captured lists name no German board — no Bundesagentur für Arbeit, no StepStone or Xing — and we found no public information on mobile application without an account, per-applicant source attribution, accessibility, or candidates seeing their own status and withdrawing. 1 5 6
The Works Council Advocate
A custom career-site builder and multiposting to dozens of named boards, including Google Jobs and Indeed, with premium boards bought through an in-system shopping cart are documented. The captured free and premium board lists name no German market board — neither the Bundesagentur für Arbeit nor a major German paid board appears — and we found no public information on the applicant-side mobile application flow or accessibility. 1 5 6
The HR IT Integrator
A custom career site builder, Google Jobs among sixteen named free boards, and premium booking from inside the system via a shopping cart with an invoice on the billing page. The named premium boards are tagged USA, UK, AUS/NZ and similar markets — we found no public information naming the Bundesagentur für Arbeit or a major German paid board, and nothing on accessibility, a per-job application form or candidates seeing their own status. 1 5 6
The Skeptic
Sixteen named free boards and a categorised premium catalogue bought through a shopping cart inside the app, with the invoice on the billing page, is genuine multiposting with in-system booking, alongside a career-site builder and a mobile app. But the captured board lists name no German board at all — this criterion looks for the Bundesagentur für Arbeit and a major German paid board — and I found no public information on source attribution per applicant, application-form configurability, or accessibility. 1 6
Retention, deletion & talent-pool consent
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What happens to the data of people who were not hired: automatic deletion on a configurable deadline, talent-pool consent that expires, data-subject requests, and access logging — the criterion the employer is actually liable for.
0 — Nothing stated about retention or deletion; applicant data stays until someone removes it by hand.
3 — Manual deletion and an anonymise button exist, but no automatic deadline, and talent-pool storage has no stated consent step.
5 — Automatic deletion or anonymisation after a configurable period after rejection, talent-pool storage only with recorded consent, and a documented way to answer an access or erasure request.
8 — Retention rules per country or entity, consent with expiry and automated re-consent requests, candidate self-service for their own data, a log of who viewed or exported an applicant file, and permissions a works council can review.
10 — Governance that can be evidenced: deletion runs are logged and reportable, special-category data can be excluded or restricted by field, every export is recorded, and the vendor publishes how deletion propagates to backups and to the job boards and tools it syncs with.
The Talent Acquisition Lead
Consent-driven deletion is implemented properly: talent-pool data rides on candidate consent that carries an expiry date, automatic erasure runs the first Sunday fourteen days after consent lapses once enabled in company settings, and candidates get in-product access and erasure rights backed by a request form with a thirty-day response target. We found no public information on a log of who viewed or exported an applicant file, retention periods per country or entity, automated re-consent requests, or how deletion propagates to backups and the boards and HR systems it syncs with. 2 7 8
The Employer Branding Manager
Consent-based GDPR tooling is genuinely there: per-position consent defaulting on for EU positions, filtering by consent status and expiry, automatic removal the first Sunday 14 days after consent expires, manual deletion, and a data-subject request form. We found no public information on access logging of applicant files, per-country retention rules, candidate self-service for their own data, or how deletion reaches backups and job boards. 2 7 8
The Data Protection Officer
This comes closest to what the employer is actually liable for: candidate consent is recorded per position, consent expiry is a filterable field, and when enabled candidates are automatically removed the first Sunday fourteen days after their consent expires, alongside a right of access, right to erasure and a data-subject request form. What keeps it from the top: we found no public information on a log of who viewed or exported an applicant file, on automated re-consent requests, on candidate self-service for their own data, or on how deletion propagates to backups and connected job boards. 2 7 8
The Works Council Advocate
Consent with expiry, on by default for EU-based positions and configurable per position, plus automatic erasure of candidates 14 days after consent expires, with access and erasure features and a data-subject request form, is more governance than most vendors show. We found no public information on a log of who viewed or exported an applicant file, on automated re-consent requests, or on how deletion propagates to backups and to the job boards the system syncs with — the last point is the employer's liability, not the vendor's. 2 7 8
The HR IT Integrator
The GDPR features are concrete: candidate consent defaulting on for EU positions, a per-position and pool-level consent toggle, automatic erasure on the first Sunday 14 days after consent expires, manual deletion with consent-status and expiry filters, and a data-subject request form with a 30-day response target. We found no public information on a log of who viewed or exported an applicant file, automated re-consent requests, or how deletion propagates to backups and job boards, which is the part the employer is actually liable for. 2 7 8
The Skeptic
Automatic erasure on the first Sunday fourteen days after a candidate's consent expires, consent required per position with an EU default-on, filtering by consent status and expiration, and documented rights of access and erasure add up to a configurable regime, not a manual delete button. I found no public information on a log of who viewed or exported an applicant file, retention rules per country or entity, automated re-consent requests, or how deletion propagates to backups and the boards the system posts to. 2 7 8
AI screening transparency & control
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether any automated ranking, matching, parsing or rejection is disclosed, explained and switchable — recruitment is a high-risk use under the EU AI Act, and an undisclosed score next to a candidate's name is a co-determination matter. A product without AI features is judged on stating so.
0 — AI matching or scoring is marketed with no statement of what it evaluates, where it runs, or whether it can be turned off.
3 — AI features are described as a benefit, with a general assurance that humans decide, but no documentation of inputs, no per-feature switch and no model or provider named.
5 — Each AI feature is described with its purpose and inputs, can be disabled per account, never rejects a candidate without a human action, and the model provider or subprocessor is named.
8 — AI outputs are shown with their reasoning to the recruiter, candidates are informed when AI is used, protected attributes are stated to be excluded, EU processing is available for the AI features, and the vendor publishes its EU AI Act position.
10 — The vendor treats recruitment AI as the high-risk system the law says it is: documentation a works council can base an agreement on, bias testing described and repeated, logs of every AI-assisted decision retained for audit, and every AI feature off by default until the customer enables it.
The Talent Acquisition Lead
Both AI tools are documented in working detail — sourcing and interview analysis run against my own criteria, the recruiter sees the score with the topics, candidate responses, signals and per-category scoring behind it, and each tool must be purchased and enabled by an admin rather than arriving switched on. But there is nothing I could hand a works council: no public information naming the model provider, stating where the AI processing runs or whether protected attributes are excluded, and no published EU AI Act position. 9 10
The Employer Branding Manager
The AI features are documented with purpose, inputs and outputs — sourcing criteria, a configurable minimum match score, and per-category interview scoring shown to the recruiter — and an admin chooses which tools to enable for the team. We found no public information on the model or provider behind them, where the AI runs, whether candidates are informed, protected-attribute handling, or an EU AI Act position. 9 10
The Data Protection Officer
Both AI features are described with purpose and inputs — sourcing scores past applicants against configurable criteria with a minimum match score, and interview analysis evaluates transcripts against your custom criteria, showing signals and per-category scoring to the recruiter — with an admin choosing which tools to enable for the team. But we found no public information naming the model provider or where it runs, no statement that protected attributes are excluded, and nothing on informing candidates or the vendor's EU AI Act position. 9 10
The Works Council Advocate
Both AI tools are documented with purpose and inputs — sourcing criteria with a configurable minimum match score, and interview analysis with custom criteria, per-category scoring and signals shown next to the score — and both sit behind admin purchase and enablement rather than running silently, with a human reaching out before any sourcing contact. We found no public information on the model provider or where processing runs, on protected-attribute exclusion, on whether candidates are informed, on bias testing, or on the vendor's EU AI Act position; without a named provider and location we cannot base an agreement on this. 9 10
The HR IT Integrator
Both AI features are documented down to inputs and outputs — sourcing runs on your own criteria with a configurable minimum match score and returns a read-only profile with the score and analysis details, and interview analysis scores transcripts against custom criteria with a per-category breakdown — and an admin must purchase and enable each tool for the team before anyone uses it. We found no public information naming the model provider or subprocessor, where the AI runs, whether candidates are informed, or any published EU AI Act position, so a works council has no vendor statement to base an agreement on. 9 10
The Skeptic
The AI features are at least documented with purpose and inputs — sourcing scores candidates against configurable criteria with a minimum-match slider and a visible score and analysis, interview analysis scores transcripts against the customer's own categories — and an admin chooses which tools to enable and buys the credits, so nothing runs unbidden. But I found no public information on the model or provider behind Breezy Intelligence, where the processing runs, whether candidates are informed, protected-attribute handling, or any EU AI Act position — the first questions a works council will ask. 9 10
HR handover, integrations & API
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The hire does not end in the ATS: handover to the HR system and payroll, identity and calendar integration, e-signature for contracts, and an API a team can build on.
0 — No integrations and no API; a hired candidate is retyped into the HR system.
3 — A CSV export and an email integration, with a partner marketplace that names no German HR or payroll systems.
5 — A documented API, calendar and video-interview integration, and a named handover to at least one HR system common in DACH (e.g. Personio, DATEV-connected systems, SAP SuccessFactors).
8 — Maintained integrations with several named HR systems carrying the hire's data without retyping, SSO and SCIM, e-signature for offers and contracts, webhooks, and an API with published limits.
10 — Integration is designed rather than bolted on: a versioned API with a deprecation policy, handover that carries documents and consent status into the HR record, deletion that propagates to connected systems, and the vendor maintaining the German integrations itself.
The Talent Acquisition Lead
Handover carries real data: fifteen named HRIS partners take new hires from a Hired stage so the hire is not retyped, and the API works on personal access tokens that expire and are invalidated when a user is removed. We found no public information on SSO or SCIM, e-signature for contracts, webhooks or published API limits, and the named partners are BambooHR, Rippling, Gusto and their peers — none of the DACH-standard systems I would need appears on the captured page. 1 3 11 12
The Employer Branding Manager
A documented developer API with personal access tokens that expire and are invalidated on user removal, plus 15 named HRIS partners that take hires from the Hired stage, is a real handover story. The named partners read as US systems and we found no public information on a handover to HR systems common in DACH such as Personio or DATEV, nor on SSO, e-signature for offers, webhooks, or published API limits. 1 10 11 12
The Data Protection Officer
Fifteen named HRIS partners from ADP and BambooHR to Hibob and Rippling carry new hires out of the Hired stage, and a documented API uses personal access tokens with an expiry timeframe and invalidation when a user is removed. We found no public information on SSO, SCIM, e-signature for offers and contracts, webhooks or published API limits, and the captured partner list includes none of the systems a German employer would look for, such as Personio, DATEV-connected systems or SAP SuccessFactors. 3 11 12
The Works Council Advocate
Fifteen named HRIS partners carry new hires into the HR system from the Hired stage without retyping, and a developer API exists with documented token creation, expiry and invalidation when a user is removed. The partner list is US-centric — we found no public information on Personio, DATEV-connected or SAP handover, nor on SSO, SCIM, e-signature for contracts, webhooks or published API limits. 3 11 12
The HR IT Integrator
Fifteen named HRIS partners fed from the Hired stage, offer management, and a personal-access-token API with selectable expiry, one-time display and invalidation when a user is removed — token hygiene I genuinely respect. But we found no public information on calendar integration, SSO, SCIM, e-signature, webhooks or published API limits, none of the fifteen systems is described as German or DACH-common, and nothing states who maintains these integrations or whether the handover carries the hire's documents. 1 3 11 12
The Skeptic
Fifteen named HRIS partners, a Hired stage type that moves candidates into the HR system, and a real API whose personal-access-token lifecycle is documented down to expiry and invalidation on user removal — that is handover without retyping. I found no public information on SSO or SCIM, e-signature for offers and contracts, webhooks, published API limits, or any HR or payroll system common in DACH among the partners listed. 11 12 3
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where applicant data lives, who the contracting entity is, who the subprocessors are — including the job boards, CV parsers and AI providers the system passes CVs to. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; weighted higher here than in categories holding the customer's own data, because every record belongs to a third party who never chose the vendor.
0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated, subprocessors unnamed, and CV parsing or AI processing of unclear location.
3 — EU hosting offered as an option while the contracting entity is non-EU, or the subprocessor list is absent, or CV parsing and AI features run outside the EU without saying so.
5 — EU hosting as standard and an EU contracting entity, but parts of the chain — parsing, AI, email delivery — are non-EU without an explained safeguard.
8 — EU hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, subprocessor list published including parsing and AI providers, and a DPA that covers applicant data as the customer's processing.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: vendor, entity, hosting and every subprocessor European, certification published, and the AI and CV-parsing features run within the EU on providers the customer can see.
The Talent Acquisition Lead
The contracting entity is Breezy HR, Inc. of Jacksonville, Florida, and the German and UK representatives exist precisely because the company sits outside the EEA. Hosting location, a subprocessor list beyond payment providers, and the location of the AI and any CV processing are all absent from public information; the privacy posture rests on EU-US Data Privacy Framework certification rather than any European residency claim. 1 2
The Employer Branding Manager
The contracting entity is Breezy HR, Inc. of Jacksonville, Florida, certified under the EU-US Data Privacy Framework with a German GDPR representative appointed — a US posture, not a European one. Hosting location and subprocessors are unknown, and we found no public information on where applicant data or the AI and CV-processing features run. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
The contracting entity is Breezy HR, Inc. of Jacksonville, Florida; the captured pages state nothing about where applicant data is hosted; and the only subprocessors named in the privacy policy are payment providers — we found no public information on the AI provider behind Breezy Intelligence or any CV parser in the chain. Certification under the EU-US Data Privacy Framework together with a named German EEA representative is the posture of a processor established outside the EU, and every CV in this system belongs to a third party who never chose that. 1 2
The Works Council Advocate
The contracting entity is Breezy HR, Inc. of Jacksonville, Florida; we found no public information on hosting location, on subprocessors — including the job boards and AI providers the system passes CVs to — or on where CV parsing and AI processing run. The EU-US Data Privacy Framework certification and a German EEA representative are the only European touchpoints we found; every record here belongs to a third party who never chose this vendor. 1 2
The HR IT Integrator
The contracting entity is Breezy HR, Inc. in Jacksonville, Florida, with a German EEA representative and certification under the EU-US Data Privacy Framework — which itself describes a US-based processing chain rather than EU hosting. Hosting location, a general subprocessor list and where CV parsing and the AI features run are all unstated; we found no public information on any of them. 1 2
The Skeptic
The contracting entity is Breezy HR, Inc. of Jacksonville, Florida, with EU-US Data Privacy Framework certification and a German EEA representative appointed — the posture of a US processor, not a European one, and every applicant record here belongs to a third party who never chose it. I found no public information on hosting location, the subprocessor list, or where Breezy Intelligence processes candidate data, and the sovereignty review found all four attributes unknown. 2 9
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the real annual cost from public pages alone: the pricing model (per employee, per open job, per recruiter seat), job-board posting costs, add-ons for AI, career page or integrations, and the minimum term.
0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.
3 — A starting price exists, but the pricing basis (employees, jobs, seats) or which features sit in which tier is unstated — the invoice is unknowable.
5 — Tier prices public with the pricing basis and main limits given, but at least one commonly needed piece (paid job-board postings, AI features, integrations, extra seats) is unpriced.
8 — Every tier priced publicly with its basis and limits, add-on prices listed, job-board posting costs or the booking model stated, minimum term and VAT treatment given.
10 — Complete price computability: annual invoice derivable for a given company size, number of open roles and recruiter seats, with every add-on, posting package and overage published.
The Talent Acquisition Lead
No price figure appears anywhere on the captured pages — no tier prices, no pricing basis, no minimum term, no VAT treatment — so I cannot compute an annual invoice from public information. What is public is the shape of the spend: AI runs on Breezy Intelligence credits at approximately fifty thousand per sourcing operation, Interview Analysis is a subscription add-on to any paid plan, and premium board postings are bought through a shopping cart invoiced on the billing page. 1 6 9 10
The Employer Branding Manager
The add-on mechanics are public — Interview Analysis subscribes onto any paid plan, each sourcing run uses about 50,000 credits with an estimate shown before setup, and the trial includes 100,000 credits — but we found no public price figures for the Growth, Business and Pro plans, no pricing basis, and no premium-board posting costs. I cannot read these pages and tell you what one posting or one year will cost. 1 6 9 10
The Data Protection Officer
The pricing structure is sketched but no figure exists: a fourteen-day trial with no credit card and 100,000 Breezy Intelligence credits, an Interview Analysis subscription that can be added to any paid plan, premium postings purchasable on free and paid plans, and sourcing consuming approximately 50,000 credits per operation. We found no public price for any plan, credit pack or job-board posting, and no information on the pricing basis, minimum term or VAT treatment — an annual invoice cannot be computed from what is published. 1 6 9 10
The Works Council Advocate
The trial terms are public — 14 days, no credit card, 100,000 Breezy Intelligence credits — and credit consumption is disclosed per operation, with sourcing estimated at approximately 50,000 credits and interview analysis described as a subscription add-on. We found no public monetary price for any plan, credit package, seat or board posting, so an annual invoice cannot be computed from the captured pages. 1 6 9 10
The HR IT Integrator
The pricing mechanics are published in unusual detail — a 14-day trial with 100,000 Intelligence credits, roughly 50,000 credits per sourcing operation with an estimate shown at setup, Interview Analysis as a purchasable add-on to any paid plan, and premium board booking through a shopping cart — but the captured pages give no price figure for any plan, credit package or posting, so a buyer cannot compute the annual invoice from what is public. 1 6 9 10
The Skeptic
Trial terms are public — "Full Feature 14-Day Trial No Credit Card Needed" with "100,000 Breezy Intelligence Credits Included" — and the credit mechanics are documented further than most, down to "approximately 50,000" credits per sourcing operation with an estimate shown at setup. But not one currency figure for the Growth, Business or Pro tiers, the seat or job basis, a minimum term, or VAT treatment appears on the captured pages, so the annual invoice cannot be computed from public information. 1 3 6 9 10
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 ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Breezy HR
Is Breezy HR European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Breezy HR is based.
Where does Breezy HR store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
Does Breezy HR have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Breezy HR?
As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates Recruitee (3.5/5), softgarden (3/5) and Pinpoint (3/5) highest among the other 29 Recruiting 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 Recruitee (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Breezy HR alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 20 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Subprocessors. 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.
- 27 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 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 data 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
Sources (12)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page breezy.hr Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Privacy policy — found from the homepage breezy.hr Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Applicant management & hiring workflow — found from sitemap help.breezy.hr Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Applicant management & hiring workflow — found from sitemap help.breezy.hr Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Multiposting, career page & candidate experience — found from sitemap help.breezy.hr Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Multiposting, career page & candidate experience — found from sitemap help.breezy.hr Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Retention, deletion & talent-pool consent — found from sitemap help.breezy.hr Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Retention, deletion & talent-pool consent — found from sitemap help.breezy.hr Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 AI screening transparency & control — found from sitemap help.breezy.hr Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 AI screening transparency & control — found from sitemap help.breezy.hr Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 HR handover, integrations & API — found from sitemap help.breezy.hr Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 HR handover, integrations & API — found from sitemap help.breezy.hr Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →