Recruiting
Pinpoint
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 Infuse Group Limited · www.pinpointhq.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
Pinpoint is an applicant tracking system for mid-sized and enterprise teams from The Infuse Group Limited, registered in St. Helier, Jersey. It is strongest on candidate pipeline, where scores cluster at 6: approval workflows, candidate scorecards, interview and offer management are published, and parallel hiring streams carry their own workflows and permissions. Job distribution, applicant data governance and integrations and handover cluster at 4: a branded careers site and multilingual candidate experience are documented, over 100 integrations plus an open API are claimed, but we found no public information naming any job board or HR and payroll system. AI screening control runs from 0 to 2, the widest spread: one judge credits that the AI features are named, another calls an undisclosed score next to a candidate exactly what the pages leave unevidenced. Sovereignty sits at 0 to 1: the complaint authority is the Jersey Office of the Information Commissioner, Standard Contractual Clauses cover transfers, and we found no public information on hosting location or a published subprocessor list. Pricing is obtained via a sales call.
Speaks for it
- Candidate pipeline scores cluster at 6, with approval workflows, candidate scorecards, interview management and offer management published as modules.
- Parallel hiring streams each carry their own workflows, permissions and reporting.
- A branded careers site, multilingual candidate experience, application forms and an Apply-with-LinkedIn button are documented.
- The privacy policy commits to deletion or anonymisation within 30 days once no business need remains, with a self-service route for candidates to manage their data.
- Over 100 native integrations plus an open API are claimed, with single sign-on and background and reference checks in the product.
Held against it
- We found no public information on a per-candidate history recording who changed which stage and when.
- We found no public information on what the six named AI features evaluate, whether each can be switched off, or who provides the model.
- We found no public information naming any job board, any HR or payroll system, or any of the claimed over 100 native integrations.
- We found no public information on a customer-configurable retention deadline, talent-pool consent with expiry, or a log of who viewed an applicant file.
- We found no public information on where applicant data is hosted, on a published subprocessor list, or on where the AI features process CVs.
Best for
- You run parallel hiring streams across locations or brands and need each to keep its own workflows, permissions and reporting.
- You want a branded, multilingual careers site with application forms and an Apply-with-LinkedIn route as your hiring front door.
- You need approval workflows, candidate scorecards and offer management for day-to-day pipeline work in one system.
Avoid if
- You must show a documented record of who changed a candidate's stage and when — we found no public information on such a history.
- You need to explain or switch off AI screening for a works council — the AI features are published as names, with nothing on what they evaluate or who provides the model.
- You depend on German job boards such as the Bundesagentur für Arbeit or on source attribution per applicant — we found no public information on either.
- You need a named handover to an HR or payroll system such as Personio, DATEV or SAP SuccessFactors — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
The scores
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
Approval workflows, candidate scorecards, flexible hiring workflows, interview management and offer management are all listed, and parallel hiring streams each carry their own workflows, branding and permissions — that maps to running three locations. But we found no public information on an audit trail recording who changed a candidate's stage and when, on structured interview kits, or on calendar integration, so the decision record I need to defend a rejection is not evidenced. 1 2
The Employer Branding Manager
Flexible hiring workflows, approval workflows, candidate scorecards, interview management, offer management and bulk actions are all listed on the product pages, which puts daily pipeline work well beyond a simple status inbox. We found no public information on a per-candidate history showing who changed what stage and when, and no evidence of German-language candidate email templates. I land between the mid and high levels: approvals, scorecards and per-stream permissions are evidenced, documented decision attribution is not. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
Flexible hiring workflows, candidate scorecards, interview management, offer management and approval workflows are all listed as product modules, and parallel hiring streams each get their own permissions and reporting. We found no public information on a per-candidate history of every stage change showing who made it, or on automated candidate communication that a human can review before bulk actions run — a decision I cannot see attributed is a decision I cannot defend in a dispute. 1 2
The Works Council Advocate
Approval workflows, flexible hiring workflows, candidate scorecards, interview management and bulk actions are all listed, and parallel hiring streams get their own workflows, permissions and reporting. What decides it for a works council is absent from the pages: we found no public information on a per-candidate history of stage changes and who made them, nor on hiring-manager access being limited to their own vacancies, so I cannot verify a decision is documented rather than merely made. 1 2
The HR IT Integrator
Approval workflows, candidate scorecards, interview management and bulk actions with offer management are all in the published modules, and parallel hiring streams each carry their own workflows, permissions and reporting. We found no public information on a per-candidate history of who moved whom at which stage, calendar-connected scheduling, or per-stage drop-off and time-to-hire reporting — so the pipeline is a workflow, not yet a record a decision can be read back from. 1 2
The Skeptic
The product pages name approval workflows, candidate scorecards, flexible hiring workflows, interview management, offer management and bulk actions, with parallel hiring streams carrying their own permissions and reporting. We found no public information on a per-candidate history recording who changed which stage, calendar-integrated scheduling, or automated candidate communication that a human reviews before it goes out, so the pipeline as evidenced stops short of an auditable decision record. 1 2
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
A branded careers site, job board advertising, a multilingual candidate experience and an Apply-with-LinkedIn button are listed, which covers the front door. But we found no public information naming any job boards — let alone the Bundesagentur für Arbeit or a major German paid board — and nothing on Google for Jobs markup, source attribution per applicant, or how the application form behaves on a phone. 2 3
The Employer Branding Manager
The Attract module names a branded careers site, application forms, job board advertising and a multilingual candidate experience, and an Apply with LinkedIn button is documented. We found no public information naming any German job boards — nothing on the Bundesagentur für Arbeit or a paid board such as StepStone — and nothing on Google for Jobs markup, mobile application without an account, or cost and applicants per channel. The branded page and multilingual support beat a bare job list, but I cannot see anything that lets me measure what a posting on a specific board adds to the bill. 2 3
The Data Protection Officer
A branded careers site, job board advertising, application forms and a multilingual candidate experience are listed, and an Apply with LinkedIn button is described. We found no public information naming any German board such as the Bundesagentur für Arbeit, on Google for Jobs markup, on source attribution per applicant, or on candidates being able to see their own status and withdraw themselves. 1 2 3
The Works Council Advocate
A branded careers site, application forms, job-board advertising, an employee referral option and a multilingual candidate experience are all evidenced, and candidates can apply with LinkedIn. We found no public information naming German boards such as the Bundesagentur für Arbeit, on Google for Jobs markup, on mobile application without an account, on accessibility, or on cost and applicants per channel — the vacancies are broadcast, not measured. 2 3
The HR IT Integrator
A branded careers site, multilingual candidate experience, application forms and job board advertising are published, and candidates can apply with LinkedIn. We found no public information on which job boards are covered — no German boards are named in the captures — nor on Google for Jobs markup, source attribution per applicant, booking or budget tracking, or the mobile application path. 2 3
The Skeptic
A branded careers site, application forms, employee referrals, job board advertising and a multilingual candidate experience are all named as modules. We found no public information naming any German job board or the Bundesagentur für Arbeit feed, Google for Jobs markup, booking or budget tracking per board, source attribution per applicant, or how the application form behaves on a phone. 1 2
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
The privacy policy commits to secure deletion or anonymisation within 30 days once there is no ongoing business need, offers a self-service "Manage Your Personal Data" route, and documents access, correction and erasure requests. What I cannot find is a retention deadline the customer configures per vacancy or entity, any recorded consent step behind the marketed talent pools and nurture features, or a log of who viewed an applicant file — and consent in the talent pool is the first question my works council will ask. 3 1
The Employer Branding Manager
The privacy policy commits to secure deletion or anonymisation within 30 days once there is no ongoing legitimate business need, and candidates get self-service data management plus access, correction and deletion requests. That window is stated as fixed rather than configurable per vacancy or country, and we found no public information on a consent step for the marketed talent pools, on consent expiry, or on a log of who viewed or exported an applicant file. As the employer liable for this data, retention is promised but talent-pool consent is unevidenced. 3
The Data Protection Officer
The privacy policy commits the vendor to delete or anonymise personal information within 30 days once it has no ongoing business need, and candidates get access, correction, deletion, objection, portability and a manage-your-data link. That deadline is the vendor's own; we found no public information on deletion configurable per rejection date, on a recorded consent step with expiry for the marketed talent pools, or on a customer-visible log of who viewed or exported an applicant file — access monitoring appears only as an internal security measure. 1 2 3
The Works Council Advocate
Deletion or anonymisation within 30 days when no business need remains, a candidate self-service link to manage their own data, and documented access and erasure routes are stated. But that 30-day rule is the vendor's own lifecycle rather than a configurable deadline after rejection, and we found no public information on talent-pool consent or its expiry, retention rules per entity, or a log of who viewed or exported an applicant file. 3 2
The HR IT Integrator
The privacy policy commits to deletion or anonymisation within 30 days once there is no ongoing business need, documents access, correction and erasure requests, and offers a self-service data-management link. We found no public information on a retention deadline the customer can configure, on consent capture or expiry for the talent pools the product markets, on logging of who viewed or exported an applicant file, or on retention rules per country — and the 30-day promise reads as the vendor's own housekeeping rather than a rule I can set for my applicants. 1 3
The Skeptic
The privacy policy documents access, correction, deletion, portability and objection requests with a DPO contact and a self-service route to manage one's own data, and states the vendor deletes or anonymises within 30 days once a business need ends. That 30-day rule is the vendor's own lifecycle rather than a configurable deadline per rejected applicant, and we found no public information on retention rules per country, consent with expiry for the marketed talent pools, or a log of who viewed or exported an applicant file. 1 2 3
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
An AI Match Score, AI Candidate Filters, AI Notetaker and AI Hiring Copilot are presented as feature names and that is all — we found no public information on what they evaluate, whether each can be switched off, where the models run, or who the provider is. A match score I cannot explain to a rejected candidate is precisely what I will not put in front of a works council, and "Anonymized screening" as a feature name is the only gesture toward fairness here — a name is not documentation. 2 1
The Employer Branding Manager
Six AI features are named — match score, candidate filters, criteria checklist, hiring copilot, notetaker and candidate companion — with anonymized screening listed alongside them. We found no public information on what any of these evaluate, whether each can be switched off, where the models run, or who the provider is. Recruitment scoring is a co-determination matter, and a feature name next to a candidate is all that is published. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
An AI Match Score, AI Candidate Filters, AI Hiring Copilot, AI Notetaker and AI Criteria Checklist are marketed, and we found no public information on what they evaluate, where they run, whether each can be switched off, or which model provider receives the CVs. The only fairness signal is a feature named Anonymized screening; there is no candidate notification, no reasoning shown to the recruiter, and no stated EU AI Act position anywhere I could see. 1 2 3
The Works Council Advocate
Six AI features — match score, candidate filters, copilot, notetaker, criteria checklist, candidate companion — are marketed by name alone; we found no public information on what any of them evaluates, where the models run, who the provider is, or whether a customer can switch each one off. "Anonymized screening" being named is the sole fairness gesture and it is equally undocumented. No answer, no agreement. 1 2
The HR IT Integrator
A wide AI layer is marketed — match score, candidate filters, criteria checklist, notetaker, copilot and anonymised screening — and I credit that the features are at least named, so a buyer knows AI sits in the decision path. Beyond the names, we found no public information on what each feature evaluates, its inputs, the model provider or where the processing runs, per-feature switches, human-decision guarantees, or any published EU AI Act position; an undisclosed score next to a candidate is exactly what I refuse to take to a works council. 1 2
The Skeptic
An AI Match Score, AI Candidate Filters, AI Criteria Checklist, AI Notetaker, AI Hiring Copilot and AI Candidate Companion are marketed by name alongside anonymised screening. We found no public information on what any of these evaluate, where the models run, whether any feature can be switched off, who the model provider is, whether candidates are informed, or the vendor's EU AI Act position — an undisclosed score next to a candidate is exactly what the pages leave unevidenced. 1 2
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
Over one hundred native integrations plus an open API are claimed, with single sign-on and background and reference checks in the onboarding module — a real surface, more than a CSV export. But we found no public information naming any HR or payroll system the hire hands over to, none of the DACH names I would need, and nothing on e-signature for offers and contracts or published API limits. 1 2 3
The Employer Branding Manager
The homepage states over 100 native integrations plus an open API, and one-way video interviews are a product module. We found no public information naming any HR or payroll system a hire hands over to — nothing on Personio, DATEV or SAP SuccessFactors — and nothing on e-signature for contracts, webhooks or published API limits. A large integration count with no names leaves the German handover unverified, so this sits just above the marketplace-without-names level. 1 2 3
The Data Protection Officer
Over 100 native integrations plus an open API are claimed, and single sign-on with Google is offered on the site. We found no public information naming any HR or payroll system common in DACH for the hire's handover, on e-signature for offers and contracts, or on webhooks and published API limits. 1 3
The Works Council Advocate
Over 100 native integrations, an open API for anything custom, and single sign-on are stated. We found no public information naming which HR or payroll systems those integrations cover — so a buyer cannot tell whether a hire's data reaches their HR system without retyping — and nothing public on e-signature, webhooks or API limits. 1 3
The HR IT Integrator
The homepage claims over 100 native integrations plus an open API for anything custom, and Google single sign-on is described — but not one of those integrations is named in the captures, so I can verify none of them. We found no public information on a handover to Personio, SAP SuccessFactors or any DACH payroll system, on e-signature for contracts, calendar sync, SCIM, webhooks, published API limits, or who maintains the connectors — whether a hire arrives with its documents rather than as a PDF someone retypes is precisely what this evidence cannot show. 1 3
The Skeptic
The vendor claims over 100 native integrations plus an open API, single sign-on is described, and background and reference checks sit in the product. None of the 100 integrations are named in the captured pages, and we found no public information on any HR or payroll system common in DACH — Personio, DATEV-connected systems, SAP SuccessFactors — nor on SCIM, e-signature for contracts, webhooks or published API limits. 1 2 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 The Infuse Group Limited, registered in St. Helier, Jersey, with the head office also in Jersey — outside the EU — and we found no public information on where applicant data is hosted, no published subprocessor list, and no statement of where the AI or parsing features run. Standard Contractual Clauses are referenced and a DPO is named, but for records belonging to third parties who never chose this vendor, an SCC reference is not a substitute for a visible chain. 4 3
The Employer Branding Manager
The contracting entity is The Infuse Group Limited, registered in St. Helier, Jersey, and data residency, ownership and subprocessor exposure are all recorded as unknown. The privacy policy names Standard Contractual Clauses for international transfers and Cognism as one marketing subprocessor, but we found no public information on where applicant data is hosted, which subprocessors receive CVs, or where the AI features run. For a system whose every record belongs to a third party, the published chain is the entity and two incidental names. 3 4
The Data Protection Officer
The contracting entity, The Infuse Group Limited trading as Pinpoint Software, is registered in St. Helier, Jersey, with the Jersey Office of the Information Commissioner named as complaint authority, and we found no public information on where applicant data is hosted. The only named subprocessor is Cognism for B2B contact data; we found no published subprocessor list and no named CV parser or AI provider, with Standard Contractual Clauses offered for transfers. 3 4
The Works Council Advocate
The contracting entity is The Infuse Group Limited with registered and head offices in St. Helier, Jersey, and the complaint channel points to the Jersey Office of the Information Commissioner; we found no public information on where applicant data is hosted. Two subprocessors surface only incidentally — Cognism for B2B contact data and a law-firm DPO contact — with standard contractual clauses as the sole transfer safeguard mentioned, and we found no published list and no statement of where CV parsing or the AI features run. 3 4
The HR IT Integrator
The contracting entity is The Infuse Group Limited with registered and head offices in St. Helier, Jersey — outside the EU — with international transfers governed by standard contractual clauses and only one subprocessor named, Cognism for B2B contact data. We found no public information on where hosting or CV and AI processing takes place, on an EU contracting or hosting option, or on a published subprocessor list covering parsing, email delivery and AI providers; for records belonging to candidates who never chose this vendor, that is close to nothing. 3 4
The Skeptic
The contracting entity is The Infuse Group Limited, registered in St. Helier, Jersey, with the Jersey Office of the Information Commissioner named as complaint authority and Standard Contractual Clauses invoked for international transfers. We found no public information on hosting location, ownership, or a published subprocessor list for the applicant-data chain; the one processor named, Cognism, is for B2B marketing contacts, and where the AI and screening features process CVs is unstated. 1 3 4
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
The only pricing route published is "Request pricing" via a sales call, with no tiers and no pricing basis stated. We found no public information on add-on prices, job-board posting costs, minimum term or VAT treatment, so I cannot compute even a rough annual invoice from what is public. 2
The Employer Branding Manager
The pricing page carries no numbers at all — "Request pricing See the product and get pricing" — and pricing is obtained via a sales call. A buyer cannot compute even a starting annual cost from public pages, and we found no public information on tier structure, per-seat or per-job basis, minimum term, or what a job-board posting would add to the invoice. This is a sales conversation, full stop. 2
The Data Protection Officer
The pricing page offers only 'Request pricing' with pricing obtained via a sales call, and the product modules are visible but no tier prices, pricing basis, add-on charges or minimum term are public. An annual invoice cannot be computed from the public pages. 2
The Works Council Advocate
The public route is a "Request pricing" prompt with prices obtained via a sales call. We found no public information on tiers, pricing basis, add-ons, job-board posting costs, minimum term or VAT treatment — no part of the annual invoice can be computed from what is published. 2
The HR IT Integrator
The pricing page publishes no prices at all — it says only "Request pricing" and that the vendor works with companies of all sizes — so every tier, the pricing basis and the minimum term are obtainable solely through a sales call. A buyer cannot compute any part of the annual cost from public pages. 2
The Skeptic
The pricing page is a sales conversation — "Request pricing" and "We work with companies of all sizes" — with the Plan, Attract, Engage, Select and Onboard modules named but no price attached to any of them. We found no public information on the pricing basis, job-board posting costs, add-ons, minimum term or VAT treatment, so the annual invoice is not computable from public pages. 2
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 | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | US CLOUD Act reach ⚠ unverified | 0/2 pts | 9 Report an error |
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.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- Weak sourcing — Subprocessors. The named server locations are European, but AWS and DigitalOcean are US-headquartered and therefore CLOUD-Act-exposed; the AI page (S7) additionally names OpenAI and Affinda as processing customer data.
- 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.
- 13 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
- 9 integrations 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
- 8 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
- 4 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 pricing 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 support 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 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 (14)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.pinpointhq.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page www.pinpointhq.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.pinpointhq.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Legal notice www.pinpointhq.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Applicant management & hiring workflow — found from sitemap www.pinpointhq.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Applicant management & hiring workflow — found from sitemap www.pinpointhq.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Multiposting, career page & candidate experience — found from sitemap www.pinpointhq.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Multiposting, career page & candidate experience — found from sitemap www.pinpointhq.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Retention, deletion & talent-pool consent — found from sitemap www.pinpointhq.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Retention, deletion & talent-pool consent — found from sitemap www.pinpointhq.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 AI screening transparency & control — found from sitemap www.pinpointhq.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 AI screening transparency & control — found from sitemap www.pinpointhq.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 HR handover, integrations & API — found from sitemap www.pinpointhq.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 HR handover, integrations & API — found from sitemap www.pinpointhq.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →