whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Recruiting

Tribepad

Provenance unknown Report an error

Panel 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 Works Council Advocate

Weighted verdict

Sits on the Betriebsrat, which co-determines selection guidelines and questionnaires. Asks what any ranking evaluates, whether it can be switched off, who sees which applicant, and whether an internal candidate's file leaks into their personnel record. No answer, no agreement.

Same scores as the panel view — this lens weights them the way this judge cares.

Scored by The Works Council Advocate

Applicant management & hiring workflow

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Multiposting, career page & candidate experience

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Retention, deletion & talent-pool consent

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

AI screening transparency & control

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

HR handover, integrations & API

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

European sovereignty

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Pricing transparency not rated — the vendor publishes no price

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

2 of 4 dimensions proven

Built only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.

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

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.

Do you know more about Tribepad? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (13)

The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.

  1. 1 Vendor page www.tribepad.com Checked 29 Sep 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Privacy policy — found from the homepage tribepad.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Security / trust page — found from the homepage tribepad.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Applicant management & hiring workflow — found from sitemap learn.tribepad.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Applicant management & hiring workflow — found from sitemap learn.tribepad.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Multiposting, career page & candidate experience — found from sitemap tribepad.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Multiposting, career page & candidate experience — found from sitemap tribepad.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Retention, deletion & talent-pool consent — found from sitemap learn.tribepad.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Retention, deletion & talent-pool consent — found from sitemap tribepad.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  10. 10 AI screening transparency & control — found from sitemap learn.tribepad.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  11. 11 AI screening transparency & control — found from sitemap learn.tribepad.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  12. 12 HR handover, integrations & API — found from sitemap tribepad.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  13. 13 HR handover, integrations & API — found from sitemap learn.tribepad.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →