Recruiting
Talention
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Talention GmbH · www.talention.de
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Talention, a German-market recruiting suite from Talention GmbH of Wuppertal, is strongest at recruitment marketing. Job distribution scores cluster at 4 for multiposting across "rd. 2.000 Kanäle", brandable career-page templates and "WhatsApp-Bewerbung", and pricing transparency also scores 4, with Start at "€299 / Monat", Pro at "€499 / Monat", "22 % Rabatt bei jährlicher Zahlung" and Enterprise "Auf Anfrage". The weakness is documentation of the hiring process itself: AI screening control scores 0-1, its public record being the homepage phrase "Automatisierte Prozesse und KI", and applicant data governance scores 1-2 because the published retention periods govern the vendor's website, not applicant files. Splits are narrow: candidate pipeline runs 2-3, the talent acquisition lead crediting the named modules while the rest find no evidence of scorecards, interview scheduling or attributed decisions, and sovereignty runs 3-4 — a verifiable German contracting entity, but we found no public information on hosting or product subprocessors, against a website privacy policy naming US recipients Google, HubSpot and Wistia with a Cloud Act access warning.
Speaks for it
- Job distribution scores 4 on multiposting across "rd. 2.000 Kanäle" with brandable career-page templates, SEO and "WhatsApp-Bewerbung".
- Pricing transparency scores 4: Start "€299 / Monat", Pro "€499 / Monat", "22 % Rabatt bei jährlicher Zahlung", and a published feature comparison across tiers.
- Starter and Pro editions are fully testable, per the vendor's own demo statement.
- The contracting entity is verifiably German — Talention GmbH, Wuppertal, Amtsgericht HRB 23491, VAT DE277218189 — with a named data-protection officer.
- Complete setup, migration from another provider and individual training are offered on the captured pages.
Held against it
- AI screening control scores 0-1: "Automatisierte Prozesse und KI" is the only public statement, with no shown inputs, model provider, per-feature switch or EU AI Act position.
- Applicant data governance scores 1-2: published retention periods (logfiles 7 days, contact data 12 months, web analysis 14 months) govern the vendor's website, not applicant files.
- Candidate pipeline scores 2-3: modules are named, but we found no public information on structured scorecards, interview scheduling or a record of who decided what.
- Integrations and handover scores 3-4: API, SSO, the BI connector and the workflow builder sit only in the Enterprise tier ("Auf Anfrage"), with no published API documentation and no named handover to a DACH HR or payroll system.
- We found no public information on applicant-data hosting or product subprocessors; the website privacy policy names US recipients Google LLC, HubSpot Inc. and Wistia Inc. with a stated Cloud Act access warning and is dated 24.05.2018 citing Privacy Shield.
Best for
- You need broad multiposting, a brandable career page and application via WhatsApp for German-market hiring.
- You want published tier prices and the ability to test the Starter and Pro editions with all functions before buying.
- You value a verifiably German contracting entity with a named data-protection officer.
Avoid if
- You must present automated screening to a works council, since the AI features come with no public documentation of what they evaluate or whether each can be switched off.
- You need SSO, API or BI access below the Enterprise tier, whose price is "Auf Anfrage".
- You carry retention duties for rejected applicants, as we found no public information on deletion after rejection, talent-pool consent or a view and export log.
- You need a handover into a named HR or payroll system, for which we found no public information.
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
Applicant management, department access, task management and a talent pipeline are named, with a workflow builder and single sign-on reserved for Enterprise, but we found no public information on structured scorecards, interview scheduling, or a per-candidate record of who decided what at each stage. For sixty hires a year, the scorecard and the attributed decision are what make a rejection defensible, and the captured pages do not show them. 1 2
The Employer Branding Manager
The captured pages name an applicant-management module, a talent pipeline, department involvement, task management and a workflow builder reserved for the Enterprise tier, and that is where the documentation stops. We found no public information on pipeline stages per job, structured scorecards, interview scheduling or any record of who decided what — a feature name is not a documented hiring workflow. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
Applicant management, a talent pipeline, department involvement, task management, feedback and communication modules are all named, and a workflow-builder sits in the Enterprise tier, but we found no public information on pipeline stages per job, structured scorecards, interview scheduling, or any history attributing each stage change to the person who made it. The pages name the modules and stop short of documenting the hiring workflow inside them. 1 2
The Works Council Advocate
Applicant management exists as a named module alongside departments, feedback, task management and a talent pipeline, but we found no public information on pipeline stages per vacancy, structured scorecards, interview scheduling, or any record of who decided what at which stage. For a works council a decision that cannot be attributed and reviewed afterwards is merely made, never documented, and nothing here evidences attribution. 1 2 4
The HR IT Integrator
Applicant management, a talent pipeline, task management and a department view are named modules, but the captured pages say nothing about pipeline stages per job, scorecards, interview scheduling or any record of who moved a candidate and why. The workflow builder is reserved for the top tier with no description of what it does — a decision that leaves no trail is exactly what I refuse to hand over to an HR system. 1 2
The Skeptic
The captured pages sell module names — Bewerbermanagement, Talent Pipeline, Fachabteilung, Aufgabenmanagement, Feedback — plus a workflow builder reserved for the top tier. We found no public information on stages per vacancy, structured scorecards, interview scheduling with calendar integration, or any history of who changed a candidate's status and why. 1 2 4
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 across roughly 2,000 channels with SEO, brand-adaptable career-page templates, mobile display and WhatsApp application are stated. The captured pages name no German job board, and we found no public information on Google for Jobs markup, source attribution per applicant, or whether candidates can apply without an account — reaching the Bundesagentur and the major German paid boards with traceable sourcing is the reason I buy multiposting. 1 2
The Employer Branding Manager
There is real distribution muscle here: multiposting across roughly 2,000 channels, brandable career-page templates, SEO, a WhatsApp application route and a claim of optimal mobile display. But we found no public information naming the German boards in that channel list, on Google for Jobs markup or on applying without an account, and nothing on source attribution per applicant — what a paid posting on a major German board adds to my bill stays invisible. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
Channel management across roughly 2,000 channels, customisable career-page templates, SEO, mobile presentation and even WhatsApp application are stated, which is real candidate-experience substance. We found no public information naming German boards such as the Bundesagentur für Arbeit, Google for Jobs markup, source attribution per applicant, or any accessibility statement. 1 2
The Works Council Advocate
Multiposting across roughly 2,000 channels, an on-brand career-page template, SEO, mobile display and application via WhatsApp are all evidenced, but not a single German job board is named, and we found no public information on Google for Jobs markup, source attribution per applicant, accessibility or candidate self-service. Distribution is broadcast here, not measured, and I cannot co-determine posting channels I cannot see. 1 2
The HR IT Integrator
Multiposting across roughly 2,000 channels, brandable career-page templates, SEO and mobile presentation are confirmed, and application via WhatsApp is an unusually direct mobile apply path. We found no public information naming the German job boards, Google for Jobs markup, per-channel booking and budget tracking, or source attribution per applicant, so distribution looks broad but unmeasured. 1 2
The Skeptic
Multiposting across 'rd. 2.000 Kanäle', brandable career page templates, SEO, mobile optimisation and 'WhatsApp-Bewerbung' are stated, which clears a bare job list. The channel count names no individual board — let alone the Bundesagentur für Arbeit or a major paid German board — and we found no public information on Google for Jobs markup, booking or budget tracking per board, source attribution per applicant, or accessibility. 1 2 4
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 published retention periods — twelve months for contact data, seven days for logfiles, fourteen months for web analysis — govern the vendor's own website, and we found no public information on automatic deletion of applicant files after rejection or a consent step for the talent pool module. Data-subject rights including erasure are documented and DSGVO conformity is listed as a Start-tier feature, but the retention duty I personally carry for rejected candidates is not evidenced for the applicant system itself. 2 3
The Employer Branding Manager
The privacy policy promises deletion of contact-form data at the latest twelve months after last contact and lists the standard data-subject rights, but those rules govern the vendor's own website forms rather than applicant files. For the talent-pool module we found no public information on a recorded consent step, automatic deletion after rejection, or a log of who viewed an applicant's data; 'DSGVO Konformität' on the pricing page is a claim without any shown mechanism. 3 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
The only published retention and data-subject-rights statements concern the vendor's own website — contact data deleted after 12 months, web-analysis data after 14 — while the applicant file itself is covered only by the pricing page's phrase 'DSGVO Konforme Bewerbung'. We found no public information on automatic deletion after rejection, talent-pool consent or its expiry, a view or export log over applicant files, or how an employer answers an access or erasure request for its own candidates. 1 2 3
The Works Council Advocate
The published privacy policy governs the vendor's website — forms, logfiles, newsletter — with retention periods for those purposes; we found no public information on automatic deletion of applicant files after rejection, a consent step with expiry for the talent pool, or a log of who viewed or exported a candidate's file. A general DSGVO-conformity claim plus a rights catalogue for website visitors is not governance an employer can be liable with, and the policy itself is dated 24.05.2018. 1 2 3
The HR IT Integrator
The published deletion periods and data-subject rights cover the vendor's own website — contact data after 12 months, logfiles after 7 days — and there is a named German data-protection officer, but that is not applicant-file governance. We found no public information on configurable deletion after rejection, consent for the talent pool, or a log of who viewed or exported an applicant file. 1 2 3
The Skeptic
Every deletion deadline we found belongs to the vendor's own website — logfiles after 7 days, analytics after 14 months, contact inquiries after 12 months — not to applicant files in the product. The product side offers one bullet, 'DSGVO Konformität', and we found no public information on automatic deletion after rejection, recorded consent for the talent-pool module, 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
The only statement is a homepage phrase, "Automatisierte Prozesse und KI", with automations repeated in the Pro tier. We found no public information on what the AI evaluates, where it runs, whether it can be switched off, or any EU AI Act position — an unexplained output next to a candidate's name is precisely what I cannot take to a works council or explain to an applicant. 1 2
The Employer Branding Manager
The homepage advertises "Automatisierte Prozesse und KI" and stops there. We found no public information on what the AI evaluates, where it runs, which model or provider is behind it, or whether a customer can switch it off per feature — an unexplained AI claim sitting next to applicant files is nothing I could take to a works council. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The entirety of the public record is the homepage phrase 'Automatisierte Prozesse und KI' plus automations in the Pro plan; we found no public information on what any AI evaluates, its inputs, its model provider or where it runs, whether candidates are informed, or whether each feature can be switched off per account. For a use the law calls high-risk, that disclosure level gives a works council nothing to agree on. 1 2
The Works Council Advocate
The homepage advertises "Automatisierte Prozesse und KI" and the Pro tier includes automations, and that is everything: we found no public information on what the AI evaluates, where it runs, whether each feature can be switched off, which provider's model is behind it, or any EU AI Act position. Recruitment is a high-risk use, and an unspecified KI label with no documentation and no per-feature switch is precisely what a works council cannot base an agreement on. 1 2
The HR IT Integrator
"Automatisierte Prozesse und KI" is marketed as a feature, and that is all the captured pages say: no statement of what it evaluates, where the model runs, whether it can be switched off, or any EU AI Act position. An undisclosed automated feature touching applicants is a co-determination matter I cannot bring to a works council as it stands. 1 2
The Skeptic
The entire AI evidence is one homepage bullet, 'Automatisierte Prozesse und KI', plus 'Automatisierungen' in Pro and a workflow builder in Enterprise. We found no public information on what the KI evaluates, its inputs, the model provider, whether any feature can be switched off, or any EU AI Act position. 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
An API, single sign-on, BI connector and data imports appear in the Enterprise tier, and a migration service from another provider is offered. We found no public information on a documented API, a named handover to a DACH HR system, e-signature, or calendar and video-interview integration, so as far as the captured pages show, the hire would still be retyped into the HR system. 1 2
The Employer Branding Manager
An API, single sign-on and data imports exist, but they sit in the Enterprise tier whose price is on request, and we found no published API documentation. We also found no public information on handover to a named German HR or payroll system, on e-signature for contracts, or on calendar and video-interview integration, so the hire looks like it ends in the ATS. 2 1
The Data Protection Officer
An API, single sign-on, a BI connector and data imports are listed, but only in the Enterprise tier, alongside social-media and video integration on the product pages. We found no public information on documented API limits, e-signature for offers and contracts, webhooks, or a handover that carries a hire into a named HR or payroll system common in the DACH market. 1 2
The Works Council Advocate
An API, single sign-on, a BI connector and data imports are listed under the Enterprise tier, but we found no public information on a documented API with published limits, a handover to any named HR or payroll system in DACH, e-signature for contracts, or webhooks. Without a named handover I cannot even assess the question I always ask: whether an internal applicant's file flows into their own personnel record when they are hired. 2 1
The HR IT Integrator
An API, single sign-on and a BI connector exist but sit only in the Enterprise tier, priced on request — SSO as an enterprise upsell is the oldest trick in the book and I need it on day one. No German HR or payroll system is named anywhere, there is no published API documentation, and we found no public information on calendar, e-signature or webhook support, so a hire still risks being retyped into Personio or SAP. 1 2
The Skeptic
API, SSO, a BI connector and data import appear as bullet points reserved for the Enterprise tier, with no documentation shown for any of them. We found no public information on a handover to any named German HR or payroll system, calendar or video-interview or e-signature integration, webhooks, or published API limits. 1 2
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
Talention GmbH in Wuppertal is the contracting entity, and transfers to HubSpot, Wistia and Google in the USA are disclosed together with a stated warning that US authorities may access data under laws like the CLOUD Act. We found no public information confirming where applicant data is hosted, and no subprocessor list for the product chain — job boards, CV parsing, AI providers — so I cannot see where a candidate's file travels. 3 4
The Employer Branding Manager
Talention GmbH is a German entity with a Wuppertal commercial-register entry — that much is solid. Beyond it, we found no public information on where applicant data is hosted or on the subprocessors the product itself uses; the recipients the privacy policy names are website marketing services, among them Google LLC, HubSpot and Wistia in the USA, alongside the vendor's own warning that US authorities may access data under the Cloud Act. 3 4
The Data Protection Officer
The contracting entity is solidly European — Talention GmbH of Wuppertal, registered at the local court under HRB 23491 — but we found no public information on where applicant data is hosted or on the product's subprocessors such as the CV parser, the AI provider or email delivery; the only published subprocessor list covers the marketing website and names the US recipients Google, HubSpot and Wistia alongside an explicit Cloud Act access warning. A German entity with an unpublished data-residency statement for the ATS itself leaves the applicant-data chain invisible to the employer who is liable for it. 3 4
The Works Council Advocate
Talention GmbH in Wuppertal with a commercial register entry and a German VAT ID is a confirmed EU contracting entity, but hosting location for applicant data is unstated, and the only subprocessor list we found covers the vendor's website chain — Google LLC, HubSpot Inc. and Wistia Inc. in the USA, with a stated Cloud Act access warning — while we found no public information on subprocessors for the product itself or on where the AI features run. The 2018-dated policy still cites Privacy Shield certifications, which tells me the published chain has not been revisited in public since. 3 4 1
The HR IT Integrator
The contracting entity is confirmed German — Talention GmbH in Wuppertal with a commercial register entry — with a German data-protection officer, and the vendor even publishes its US recipients together with a CLOUD Act access warning. Those recipients serve the marketing site; we found no public information on where applicant data is hosted or which subprocessors the applicant-management product itself uses, including any CV parsing or AI provider. 3 4
The Skeptic
The contracting entity is verifiably German — Talention GmbH, Wuppertal, Amtsgericht HRB 23491, VAT DE277218189 — but we found no public information on where applicant data is hosted or on product subprocessors such as job boards, CV parsers or the unnamed KI provider. The recipients the privacy policy names (Google, HubSpot, Wistia) are the vendor's own website tools, three US companies covered by the vendor's own Cloud Act access warning. 1 3 4
Pricing transparency
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
Start and Pro are published at €299 and €499 per month with a plan-comparison table, a 22% annual-payment discount, and full testability of the two lower editions, while Enterprise is "Auf Anfrage". We found no public information on the pricing basis, minimum term, VAT treatment, or job-board posting costs, so the real annual invoice for a sixty-role operation is not computable from the public pages alone. 2
The Employer Branding Manager
Two tiers are publicly priced — Start at €299 / Monat and Pro at €499 / Monat — with a feature-comparison table, a 22% Rabatt bei jährlicher Zahlung, and Starter and Pro fully testable, which is more than most vendors show. But the pages never state what those monthly prices are based on, Enterprise is on request only, and we found no public information on job-board posting costs, minimum term or VAT treatment, so my real annual bill is not computable from public pages. 2
The Data Protection Officer
Three tiers are public — Start at €299 / Monat and Pro at €499 / Monat with '22 % Rabatt bei jährlicher Zahlung', Enterprise 'Auf Anfrage' — and a feature-comparison table states which module sits in which plan. We found no public information on the pricing basis per plan, the minimum term, VAT treatment, job-board posting costs, or prices for any add-on, so the real annual invoice is not computable from the pages alone. 2
The Works Council Advocate
Start at €299/Monat and Pro at €499/Monat are published with 22 % Rabatt bei jährlicher Zahlung and a feature comparison across the packages, but we found no public information on the pricing basis — jobs, seats or company size — on VAT treatment, minimum term, or what job-board postings cost, and Enterprise is "Auf Anfrage". A buyer sees the entry price but cannot compute their own invoice, and I cannot co-determine a budget I cannot compute. 2
The HR IT Integrator
Start at "€299 / Monat" and Pro at "€499 / Monat" are public, with a 22 % discount for annual payment and a published feature comparison across the three tiers. The pricing basis — per company, per recruiter seat, per open job — is nowhere stated, Enterprise is "Auf Anfrage", and we found no public information on job-board posting costs, minimum term or VAT treatment, so the real annual invoice is not computable. 2
The Skeptic
Start at '€299 / Monat' and Pro at '€499 / Monat' are public, with '22 % Rabatt bei jährlicher Zahlung' and a feature comparison table, while Enterprise is 'Auf Anfrage'. The pricing basis — seats, vacancies, company size — is unstated, and we found no public information on job-board posting costs despite the 'rd. 2.000 Kanäle' claim, on the minimum term, or on VAT treatment, so a real annual invoice is not computable from the pages. 1 2
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 ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 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.
- 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.
- 43 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
- 7 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 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
- 2 subprocessors 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 compliance fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 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 hosting 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 (9)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.talention.de Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page www.talention.de Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.talention.de Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Legal notice www.talention.de Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Applicant management & hiring workflow — found from sitemap www.talention.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Applicant management & hiring workflow — found from sitemap www.talention.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Multiposting, career page & candidate experience — found from sitemap www.talention.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Multiposting, career page & candidate experience — found from sitemap www.talention.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Retention, deletion & talent-pool consent — found from sitemap www.talention.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →