Recruiting
Tribepad
Provenance unknown Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 2 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Tribepad Ltd · www.tribepad.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
Tribepad is a cloud-based recruitment platform and applicant tracking system from Tribepad Ltd, a UK company, with hosting stated as AWS and all data hosted within the UK. It scores strongest on AI screening control: Sidekick's inputs are listed, diversity questionnaire answers are excluded from processing, the score is generated once at submission and can be removed per job. The split there — 6 versus 7 — turns on the stated bias testing, which the lower scores treat as a claim rather than evidence; neither side found public information on informing candidates of AI use or a published EU AI Act position. Applicant data governance holds at 6 on automatic, reportable deletion after a configurable idle period and opt-in talent-pool emails. Candidate pipeline and job distribution score 5-6, with no structured scorecards, no per-candidate stage-change history and no named German boards. Sovereignty is weakest at 2-3: a non-EU entity, US-headquartered AWS, acknowledged transfers outside the UK and EEA, and no published subprocessor list. Integrations score 4-5, no HR system named. No prices are published; buying runs through a 30-minute call.
Speaks for it
- AI screening inputs are documented, with diversity and equal-opportunities questionnaire answers excluded from processing and the score removable per job
- Idle candidates are deleted automatically after a configurable period, visible in a scheduling report with warning emails to candidates
- Talent-pool job-matching emails require a recorded candidate opt-in plus a platform permission
- Ten application stages and unlimited per-job interview workflows are configurable, with scheduling against Google and Office 365 calendars
- Jobs are posted, tracked and closed across boards from inside the ATS, with an Indeed partnership and pay-as-you-go Job Booster across 5000+ media channels
Held against it
- Contracting entity is a UK company with hosting on AWS within the UK, transfers outside the UK and EEA acknowledged, and no dedicated subprocessor list is published
- The captured pages name no HR or payroll system, and we found no public information on API documentation, single sign-on or webhooks
- The stated audit trail logs access attempts, and we found no public information on a per-candidate record of stage changes or structured scorecards
- We found no public information on informing candidates that AI is used, on retained logs of AI-assisted decisions, or on a published EU AI Act position
- We found no public information on German boards or Google for Jobs markup, or on how deletion propagates to backups and the boards it syncs with
Best for
- You want AI screening you can configure and defend, with documented inputs, excluded diversity answers, and per-job on/off plus score removal
- You need automatic, reportable deletion of idle candidates and opt-in-based talent-pool communication for privacy reviews
- You hire across many boards and want posting, tracking and pay-as-you-go promotion run from one system, with board performance tracking
- You run high-volume, per-job interview workflows with calendar-based scheduling across Google and Office 365
Avoid if
- You need an EU contracting entity or EU hosting — the vendor is a UK company with data stated to be hosted on AWS within the UK, and sovereignty scores 2-3
- Your procurement requires an inspectable processing chain — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- Your HR handover depends on a named system such as Personio or SAP SuccessFactors — the captured pages name none and integrations score 4-5
- You must show attributable hiring decisions to a works council — the stated audit trail logs access attempts, and we found no public information on who moved a candidate at each stage and why
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
Stage workflows are configurable per job with custom labels, drag-and-drop moves, sub-statuses, quick actions and bulk shortlisting, and interview scheduling runs off Google and Office 365 calendars with slot and availability control — the daily work is genuinely covered. What I cannot evidence is a structured scorecard or any record of who changed a stage and why, and I found no public information on hiring-manager access limited to their own vacancies or on German-language email templates. 3 4 5 9 13
The Employer Branding Manager
Ten labelled application stages with unlimited per-job workflows, permission-gated drag-and-drop, bulk shortlisting, sub-statuses and interview scheduling tied to Google and Office 365 calendars are all documented in the help centre. I found no public information on structured scorecards, requisition or offer approval workflows, or a per-candidate history of who made each stage change, so the pipeline is configurable but I cannot call it an auditable decision record. 4 5 13
The Data Protection Officer
The workflow editor gives configurable application and interview stages per job with custom labels, and candidates move by permission-gated drag-and-drop with bulk shortlisting, sub-statuses, and candidate emails at offer and acceptance. We found no public information on approval workflows for requisitions and offers, structured scorecards, or a per-candidate history showing who made each stage change; role-based access control and a full audit trail of access attempts are stated on the security page. 3 4 5 13
The Works Council Advocate
Ten application stages and unlimited interview workflows are configurable per job, interview scheduling runs against Google and Office 365 calendars, and moving a candidate can trigger questionnaires, sub-statuses and onboarding workflows. What I found no public information on is structured scorecards and, crucially for a works council, a per-candidate history showing who moved them at each stage and why — the documented audit trail logs access attempts, not decisions — so a selection process here is traceable as activity, not yet as attributable, reasoned judgement. 4 5 13 3
The HR IT Integrator
The workflow machinery is well documented — ten application stages plus unlimited per-job interview workflows with custom labels, permission-gated drag-and-drop, sub-statuses, contract generation at the offer stage, and interview scheduling with Google and Office 365 calendars and configurable availability rules. What I cannot find is decision documentation: no approval workflow for requisitions or offers, no structured scorecards or interview kits, and the audit trail logs access attempts rather than who moved a candidate and why. The captured pages also say nothing about German-language candidate communication. 4 5 13 3
The Skeptic
Workflows are genuinely configurable — ten application stages and unlimited interview workflows with custom labels assignable per job, drag-and-drop moves with sub-statuses, contract generation at offer, and interview scheduling with Google and Office 365 calendars plus attendance and gap rules. Evaluation is where it thins out: we found no public information on structured scorecards, approval workflows for requisitions or offers, or a per-candidate history of who changed which stage — the audit trail claim covers access attempts generally. 4 5 13 3
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
Jobs can be posted, managed and closed across boards from inside the ATS, with pay-as-you-go promotion across 5,000+ channels at one-off prices shown at booking and board-performance tracking, plus an Indeed partnership and a no-code landing page builder. But the only board named is Indeed: I found no public information on the Bundesagentur für Arbeit or any major German paid board, on Google for Jobs markup, or on mobile application without an account. 6 7 9
The Employer Branding Manager
Posting, tracking and closing jobs across boards from inside the ATS, pay-as-you-go Job Booster booking with one-off pricing shown at booking, and board performance tracking are the parts of my job-ad budget I care about, and they are stated. The only named board is an Indeed partnership — the captured pages name no German boards — and I found no public information on Google for Jobs markup, mobile application without an account, or career-page accessibility, which is the funnel half. 6 7 9
The Data Protection Officer
Jobs are posted, tracked and closed across boards from inside the system via pre-built connections, with an Indeed partnership and a pay-as-you-go Job Booster across 5000+ channels offering one-off pricing and board performance tracking. We found no public information on a branded career page, Google for Jobs markup, named German boards, or a mobile application path, so the candidate-facing side is thin. 6 7 9
The Works Council Advocate
Posting, managing, tracking and closing jobs across boards from inside the system is evidenced, with pay-as-you-go promotion across thousands of channels showing one-off prices at booking time, and one major board, Indeed, is named as a partner. For the German market I found no public information on the Bundesagentur für Arbeit or other German boards, on Google for Jobs markup, on mobile application without an account, or on candidates seeing their own status and withdrawing themselves — the reach is asserted, the German specifics are not. 6 7 9
The HR IT Integrator
Distribution runs from inside the ATS via pre-built connections, with an Indeed partnership and a pay-as-you-go Job Booster across 5000+ channels giving one-off pricing and per-board performance tracking — closer to measured distribution than mere broadcast. However, we found no public information on named German boards, Google for Jobs markup, a multi-language or accessibility-stated career page, mobile application without an account, or candidates seeing their own status and withdrawing. 6 7 9
The Skeptic
Posting is managed from inside the system — post, track, report and close jobs across boards via pre-built connections, an Indeed partnership, and a pay-as-you-go Job Booster across 5000+ channels with one-off pricing and board-performance tracking. But for a German buyer we found no public information on the Bundesagentur für Arbeit or named German paid boards, Google for Jobs markup, career-page languages or accessibility, or a mobile application flow without an account. 6 7 9
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
Idle candidates are automatically scheduled for deletion on a configurable deadline, with a report showing deletion status and date, warning emails and candidate-request deletions, and talent-pool job-matching emails require a recorded opt-in at profile creation. For a story I could defend to a works council, I found no public information on consent expiry or re-consent, per-country retention rules, or candidate self-service for their own data. 2 3 8 11
The Employer Branding Manager
Deletion of idle candidates runs on a configurable period set in the admin tool, with warning emails and a scheduling report showing deletion status and dates, and job-matching emails require a recorded candidate opt-in plus a platform permission. The privacy policy documents access and erasure requests with one-month response times; I found no public information on consent expiry or automated re-consent, retention rules per country, or how deletion propagates to backups and the job boards it syncs with. 8 11 2
The Data Protection Officer
Deletion runs after a configurable idle period set in the Data Protection section and is visible in a scheduling report covering candidate-requested deletions and warning emails, and talent-pool job-matching emails require a recorded opt-in. What I miss is provability: we found no public information on consent expiry or automated re-consent, retention rules per country or entity, candidate self-service for their own data, or a log of who viewed or exported an applicant file — the stated audit trail covers access attempts to the platform generally. 2 3 8 11
The Works Council Advocate
Automatic deletion after a configurable idle period is real and reportable — the scheduling report shows deletion reason, status and date, with warning emails to candidates beforehand — and talent-pool job-matching emails require a recorded candidate opt-in plus a platform permission. I found no public information on consent expiry and re-consent, on retention rules per country or entity, on candidate self-service for their own data, or on how deletion propagates to backups and to the boards and systems it syncs with. 8 11 2 3
The HR IT Integrator
Automatic deletion after a configurable idle period is genuinely implemented and reportable — a scheduling report with deletion system, status and scheduled date, warning emails to candidates, and candidate-request deletions — and talent-pool communication runs on explicit GDPR opt-ins. The captured pages are silent on retention rules per country, consent expiry and automated re-consent, and how deletion propagates to backups or the boards and HR systems it syncs with; the privacy policy states no specific retention periods. 8 11 2 3
The Skeptic
Deletion is operational rather than aspirational: a scheduled-deletion report shows candidates due for removal after a configurable idle period, with warning emails and filters by deletion source including candidate requests, and talent-pool job-matching emails run only on recorded candidate opt-in. We found no public information on consent expiry or re-consent, retention rules per country or entity, or a log of who viewed or exported an applicant file, and the privacy policy states only that data is kept as long as necessary. 8 11 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
Sidekick's inputs are documented — CV, work and education history, questionnaire responses — diversity and equal-opportunities answers are excluded from processing, the score is generated once at submission and can be removed from a job, AI Insights sit behind a tickbox at job creation, the model is described as in-house and regularly bias-tested, and no solely automated significant decisions are claimed. Gaps: I found no public information on informing candidates that AI is used, on a published EU AI Act position, or on retained logs of AI-assisted decisions. 2 3 10
The Employer Branding Manager
The AI assistant's inputs are documented (CV, work and education history, questionnaire responses), diversity and equal-opportunities questionnaire answers are excluded from processing, the score is generated once at submission, the feature is switched on per job by tickbox and can be removed, the model is in-house with bias testing described, and the policy states no solely automated decisions with significant effects. What is missing for my works council: I found no public information on informing candidates when AI is used, retained logs of AI-assisted decisions, or a published EU AI Act position — the published privacy basis is the UK GDPR with the EU GDPR only "where applicable". 10 3 2
The Data Protection Officer
Sidekick's scoring inputs are documented with Diversity and Equal Opportunities questionnaire answers excluded, insights are enabled per job by tickbox with a remove-score button, reasoning is shown as strengths, weaknesses and suggested questions, and the policy states no solely automated significant decisions are made. We found no public information on informing candidates that AI is used, a published EU AI Act position, or retained logs of AI-assisted decisions; bias testing is claimed as regular. 2 3 10
The Works Council Advocate
Here the documentation is unusually usable for a works council: the score's inputs are listed, it is computed once at submission, diversity and equal-opportunities questionnaire answers are excluded from processing, the score can be removed per job while AI insights are enabled by tickbox, the model is stated in-house, and bias testing is described as repeated. Still missing for a co-determination agreement: a published EU AI Act position, informing candidates that AI is used, retained logs of every AI-assisted decision, and EU processing — the stated hosting is the UK. 10 3 2
The HR IT Integrator
Sidekick is documented better than most: scoring inputs are itemised, the score is generated once at submission, Diversity and Equal Opportunities questionnaire types are excluded, insights are switched on per job by a tickbox and can be removed, the model is in-house and regularly tested for bias, and the vendor states it makes no solely automated significant decisions. We found no public information on candidates being informed of AI use, a published EU AI Act position, audit logs of AI-assisted decisions, or EU processing for the AI features — hosting is stated as UK, not EU. 10 3 2
The Skeptic
Sidekick's inputs are documented — CV, work and education history, questionnaire responses — with Diversity and Equal Opportunities answers excluded from processing, the feature is enabled per job via a tickbox with a per-job score-removal button, and the privacy policy states no solely automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects. But bias testing appears only as a claim of being regularly real-world tested, and we found no public information on informing candidates when AI is used, a published EU AI Act position, or retained logs of AI-assisted decisions. 10 3 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
Automated candidate-to-employee record sync via pre-built HRIS connections is described, Teams and Office 365 integrations are documented down to the per-user account linking, and an API is claimed as deeply configurable — but no API documentation is published and not a single HR system is named, so I cannot see a handover to Personio, a DATEV-connected system or SuccessFactors. I also found no public information on e-signature for contracts, SSO or webhooks. 1 3 12 13
The Employer Branding Manager
The HRIS pages promise automated candidate and employee record sync via pre-built connections, and Teams, Office 365 and Google calendar integrations plus a configurable API are documented. The captured pages name no specific HR system — none of the DACH ones my HR team runs — and I found no public information on published API documentation, SSO, e-signature for contracts, or webhooks. 12 13 3
The Data Protection Officer
Pre-built connections sync candidate and employee records with HRIS systems automatically, an integrations directory exists, calendar integration covers Google and Office365 with interview scheduling, and the offer stage can generate contracts. The captured pages give no named HRIS or payroll system, and we found no public information on SSO, SCIM, webhooks, e-signature or published API limits — the API is described only as deep configurability. 3 5 12 13
The Works Council Advocate
Automated syncing of candidate and employee records between the ATS and an HRIS is evidenced, with a pre-built integrations directory, Teams and calendar connections, and contract generation at the offer stage — which raises my standing question about an internal candidate's application flowing into their personnel record, and we found no public information on consent status travelling with that handover. The captured pages name no HR or payroll system common in DACH, and I found no public information on single sign-on, user provisioning, e-signature, webhooks or published API limits. 12 13 5 3
The HR IT Integrator
The HRIS pages promise automated candidate-and-employee record sync through pre-built connections with a directory and a secure integrations framework, and the calendar and Teams interview-link setup is documented down to per-user account linking — but the captured pages name no HR system, so I cannot confirm a handover to Personio, DATEV-connected systems or SAP SuccessFactors, and there is no public information on who maintains the connectors. The API appears only as a claim of deep configurability with no documentation, published limits or webhooks, and we found no public information on SSO, SCIM or e-signature; offer-stage contract generation is shown, signature is not. 12 13 3 5
The Skeptic
A genuine handover story exists — an HRIS integrations directory with pre-built connections and automated syncing of candidate and employee records, plus Microsoft Teams and Office 365 interview scheduling. But the captured pages do not name a single specific HR or payroll system, deep API configurability appears only as a marketing phrase, and we found no public information on documented API limits, SSO or SCIM, webhooks, or e-signature. 12 13 3 6
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
Vendor and contracting entity are the UK company Tribepad Ltd of Sheffield, hosting is on named AWS infrastructure with all data stated to be within the UK, and the AI assistant is described as in-house. That is still a non-EU entity on non-EU hosting with no published subprocessor list, and the privacy policy acknowledges processing outside the UK and EEA under safeguards named only generically; I found no public information on EU hosting or an EU contracting option. 2 3
The Employer Branding Manager
The contracting entity is Tribepad Ltd in Sheffield, hosting is named as AWS with all data held within the UK, and the privacy policy acknowledges transfers outside the UK/EEA covered by adequacy decisions and contractual mechanisms. For my German vacancies that is a non-EU entity on non-EU hosting, the provider AWS is US-headquartered, and we found no public information on an EU hosting option or a dedicated subprocessor list covering parsing, AI and email delivery. 2 3 12
The Data Protection Officer
The contracting entity is the UK company Tribepad Ltd, hosting is on AWS with all data stated to be in the UK, and the privacy policy acknowledges transfers outside the UK/EEA. We found no published subprocessor list and no public information on EU hosting or an EU option; for thousands of applicants who never chose this vendor, that chain is not one a works council can inspect. 2 3
The Works Council Advocate
The contracting entity is a UK company, applicant data is stated to be hosted on AWS in the UK, transfers outside the UK and EEA are acknowledged, and we found no published dedicated subprocessor list — the named third parties on the pages are website cookie and analytics tools, not the product chain. For data belonging to applicants who never chose this vendor, that means a non-EU entity with an unpublished processing chain; we found no public information on any EU hosting option or on where CV parsing and the AI features actually run. 2 3
The HR IT Integrator
The contracting entity is the UK company Tribepad Ltd and hosting is stated as AWS within the UK, with the AI built in-house — but for a German buyer every applicant record sits with a non-EU entity under UK GDPR, with no published subprocessor list, acknowledged transfers outside the UK or EEA, and a US-headquartered hosting provider. The privacy policy itself applies EU GDPR only "where applicable". 2 3 6
The Skeptic
Hosting is stated — AWS, with all data hosted within the UK — but for a German buyer the whole chain sits outside the EU: contracting entity Tribepad Ltd in the UK, UK hosting on US-headquartered AWS, acknowledged transfers outside the UK/EEA, and no published subprocessor list. The in-house AI claim is a transparency point, yet the captured pages do not evidence EU processing anywhere. 3 2 12
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 facts are that upgrades to existing features are included in the package and job promotion is pay-as-you-go with one-off prices shown at booking inside the product; no tier price, pricing basis, minimum term or add-on price is published, and the shown path is a 30-minute demo call. I cannot compute an annual invoice for my team from public pages. 3 6 12
The Employer Branding Manager
The only pricing statements are marketing language — "cost-effective, transparent pricing", no upgrade fees within a package — plus a Book a 30-minute call button; Job Booster is pay-as-you-go with one-off prices shown at booking time, but nothing is public before that. No tier prices, pricing basis, minimum term or VAT treatment are published, so I cannot derive an annual cost from the public pages, let alone what a paid board posting adds to my bill. 6 3 12
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pages carry the phrase cost-effective, transparent pricing and a never-pay-for-upgrades claim, but we found no public figure, tier, pricing basis or minimum term — the buyer is invited to book a 30-minute call. Job Booster is stated as pay-as-you-go with transparent one-off pricing, unpriced, so the annual invoice cannot be computed from public pages alone. 3 6 12
The Works Council Advocate
The captured pages give no prices at all — no tier, no pricing basis, no minimum term — only the words 'cost-effective, transparent pricing', a promise of no upgrade fees for existing features, and a pay-as-you-go job-promotion model whose prices appear at booking time rather than in public. A buyer cannot compute any annual cost from these pages; every number sits behind a demo call. 12 3 6
The HR IT Integrator
The captured pages state pricing only in words — "Cost-effective, transparent pricing" and "never pay for upgrades to existing features in your package" — with no tier prices, no pricing basis, no minimum term and no VAT treatment; the path offered is a 30-minute call. Job Booster is described as pay-as-you-go with "transparent one-off pricing" but no figures are published, so no annual invoice can be computed from public pages. 12 3 6
The Skeptic
"Cost-effective, transparent pricing" is a slogan with no numbers behind it in the captured pages, and the buying path shown is a 30-minute demo call. The only pricing shape given is the Job Booster model — pay-as-you-go with one-off pricing shown at booking time — so no figure is published for any tier, seat, or posting. 12 6 3
European sovereignty — proven facts
2 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Incorporated in GB | 1/3 pts | 2 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 | 3 Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 29 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. AWS is US-headquartered even though the stated hosting region is the UK, no dedicated subprocessor list is published, and the named providers in S1 are marketing-website tools (analytics, cookie management, embeds) that do not process customer product 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.
- We found no public information on pricing on the pages we read (tribepad.com, tribepad.com/privacy-and-cookies-policy, tribepad.com/security-compliance, learn.tribepad.com/workflow-editor, learn.tribepad.com/processing-candidates, tribepad.com/job-board-integrations and 7 more). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- 14 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 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 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
- 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 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
Sources (13)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.tribepad.com Checked 29 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Privacy policy — found from the homepage tribepad.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Security / trust page — found from the homepage tribepad.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Applicant management & hiring workflow — found from sitemap learn.tribepad.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Applicant management & hiring workflow — found from sitemap learn.tribepad.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Multiposting, career page & candidate experience — found from sitemap tribepad.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Multiposting, career page & candidate experience — found from sitemap tribepad.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Retention, deletion & talent-pool consent — found from sitemap learn.tribepad.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Retention, deletion & talent-pool consent — found from sitemap tribepad.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 AI screening transparency & control — found from sitemap learn.tribepad.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 AI screening transparency & control — found from sitemap learn.tribepad.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 HR handover, integrations & API — found from sitemap tribepad.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 HR handover, integrations & API — found from sitemap learn.tribepad.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →