Talent Management
Factorial
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Factorial HR S.L. · factorialhr.de
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Link to this page
Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds.
The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where
that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.
Factorial at a glance
- Vendor
- Factorial HR S.L.
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Factorial 0.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Factorial HR S.L. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 3 Oct 2026 to 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 14 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Factorial HR S.L. of Barcelona markets performance, OKR, learning and skills modules, but its captured pages confirm almost nothing behind them. Codetermination and privacy scored 1 to 3 on the strength of general security assurance — internal single sign-on, least privilege, logging and access monitoring are confirmed on the trust page — but with no public information on visibility rules for review data, a minimum group size for anonymous results, retention settings or what any AI feature processes, the judges who scored it highest say a works agreement could not be drafted from these pages. Core modules — performance reviews, goals and feedback, learning and development — scored 0 to 2: judges crediting the pages' existence scored 2, judges scoring only confirmed detail scored 0. Pricing transparency ranged 0 to 2: the pricing page yields no confirmed figure, basis, tier mapping or minimum term, so no annual invoice is computable. Sovereignty's 1-to-3 spread splits on the Barcelona entity versus unconfirmed residency and subprocessors; integrations and portability ranged 1 to 2 with no public information on a named HR-system sync, API or export.
Speaks for it
- General security controls — internal single sign-on, least privilege, logging, access monitoring and data backups — are confirmed on the vendor's trust page.
- The vendor publishes a recovery time objective of 1 hour, a recovery point objective of 1 day, and application penetration testing among its controls.
- The privacy policy names the contracting entity, Factorial HR S.L. of Barcelona.
- Dedicated pages market the full module set — performance management, 360-degree feedback, OKR, training management, an LMS and skill management — alongside integrations and pricing pages.
- Customer-support and platform service-level agreements and a vulnerability-reporting channel are published.
Held against it
- We found no public information on rating scales, calibration, check-ins feeding the year-end review, learning paths with completion tracking or succession plans.
- We found no public information on a named HR-system sync, a documented API, SCIM provisioning or bulk export of review, goal and feedback history.
- We found no public information on visibility rules for review data, a minimum group size for anonymous results, retention or deletion settings, or AI features that summarise or score and how to switch them off.
- The captured pricing page confirms no price figure, pricing basis, module-to-tier mapping, minimum term or VAT treatment, so no annual invoice is computable from public material.
- Hosting is named as Amazon Web Services and Azure with no hosting region stated on the captured pages, and we found no public information on a subprocessor list, AI providers included.
Best for
- You are assembling a shortlist of EU-presented vendors and will test the marketed module set through demos and written questions, since the public pages leave the details open.
- You weigh a vendor's own security posture — internal single sign-on, least privilege, logging, backups, a recovery time objective of 1 hour — as a starting point before deeper due diligence.
- You prefer what the vendor presents as an EU vendor with a German-market presence and are ready to negotiate data residency, subprocessors and export terms in the contract.
Avoid if
- You must compute an annual cost from public pricing before contacting sales — the pricing page confirms no figure, basis or minimum term.
- You need to give a works council concrete terms to sign — we found no public information on visibility rules, anonymity minimums, retention settings or AI-feature disclosure.
- You depend on a named HR-system sync, a documented API or export of your review, goal and feedback history at contract end.
- You need evidence of review, goal or learning workflows — rating scales, check-ins, completion-tracked learning paths — from documentation alone.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Performance reviews & calibration | 0.5 of 5 |
| Goals, OKRs & continuous feedback | 0.5 of 5 |
| Learning, skills & succession | 0.5 of 5 |
| Works council, visibility & AI disclosure | 1 of 5 |
| HRIS sync, integrations & data portability | 0.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 0.5 of 5 |
Performance reviews & calibration
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The review cycle itself: configurable templates and rating scales, self, manager and 360° input, calibration across teams, and whether each rating can be traced back to criteria fixed before the cycle began.
0 — No structured reviews; at most a free-text form with no cycle, no scale and no record of who wrote what.
3 — Fixed review templates with self and manager input, but no configurable criteria, no calibration and no statement of what the employee sees.
5 — Configurable cycles, questions and rating scales, self, manager and peer input, employee sign-off or acknowledgement, and the review history kept per employee.
8 — 360° feedback with configurable reviewer selection, calibration views across teams with rating distributions, review criteria per role or level, reminders and deadlines per cycle, and a documented rule for what the employee, the manager and HR can each see.
10 — Reviews are an auditable process: criteria and competency models versioned and fixed before the cycle, every rating change during calibration attributed and reasoned, bias checks or distribution analysis described, and the full review history exportable per employee.
The Head of HR
The captured performance-management and 360-degree-feedback pages provided no confirmed detail on review templates, rating scales, self, manager or peer input, or calibration across teams. I found no public statement of what the employee, the manager or HR can each see or sign, so I have nothing here to run a cycle on. 5 8 5
The Managing Director
The vendor publishes a performance management page and a 360-degree feedback page, so a review product is marketed, but we found no public information on configurable templates, rating scales, calibration across teams or who sees a finished review. I cannot tell whether the yearly conversation would be prepared rather than improvised, and nothing here evidences criteria fixed before the cycle began. 5 8 5
The People Analyst
The captured performance pages gave no confirmed detail on review cycles, configurable templates or rating scales, self, manager or peer input, calibration, or who may see each rating, so a structured review process is entirely unverified from public evidence. A buyer cannot tell from what is published whether reviews, let alone traceable ratings, exist in the product. 5 8 5
The Works Council Member
The captures include a performance-management page and a 360-degree-feedback template, but I found no public information on rating scales, configurable criteria, calibration across teams, or what the employee themselves may see of the file written about them. For a works agreement that silence is decisive: the review cycle is unevidenced beyond its existence. 5 8
The HR IT Integrator
The captured performance and 360-degree feedback pages yielded no confirmed detail on review templates, rating scales, calibration, reviewer selection or what the employee sees; I found no public information on any of it. Without evidence of a structured cycle I have nothing to build an auditable rating record on. 5 8 5
The Skeptic
The vendor sells a performance module and publishes 360-degree feedback material, yet the captured pages confirm no detail of cycles, templates, rating scales, calibration, or who sees the result — we found no public information on any of it. Marketing surface with not a single evidenced capability earns almost nothing. 5 8
Goals, OKRs & continuous feedback
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The work between review cycles: individual and team goals or OKRs with alignment, progress check-ins, 1:1 meetings with shared agendas, and feedback and recognition — judged on whether the year-end review can draw on it rather than starting from memory.
0 — No goals or feedback features; objectives live in documents outside the product.
3 — Individual goals with a progress percentage, and praise or feedback as an unstructured feed, with no link to the review cycle.
5 — Goals or OKRs at company, team and individual level with alignment, regular check-ins, 1:1 agendas shared between manager and employee, and requested feedback that can be pulled into the next review.
8 — OKR or goal cascading with dependencies and confidence tracking, goal changes logged with history, 1:1 notes with private and shared parts stated, feedback requests to named colleagues, and integrations into Microsoft Teams or Slack for check-ins.
10 — Continuous performance management that feeds the record: goal history, check-ins, 1:1 outcomes and feedback visible in the review with their dates, configurable whether goal attainment affects ratings, and reporting on goal progress across the organisation.
The Head of HR
The captured OKR and goal-agreement pages yielded no confirmed facts on goal levels and alignment, regular check-ins, shared 1:1 agendas or feedback requests. I found no public information tying any of it into the review cycle, so the year-end rating would start from memory. 6 9 6
The Managing Director
A dedicated OKR page exists, yet we found no public information on company, team and individual alignment, shared 1:1 agendas, check-in cadence or feedback that can be pulled into the next review. My core test — whether the year-end review draws on the year's record instead of memory — cannot be answered from the captured pages. 6 6
The People Analyst
We found no public information on goal or OKR structure, alignment across company, team and individual levels, check-ins, shared 1:1 agendas, or any link between continuous feedback and the year-end review. I cannot verify that anything happening between review cycles is recorded in the product at all. 6 9 6
The Works Council Member
The captures include OKR and goal-agreement pages, but I found no public information on check-ins, shared 1:1 agendas or requested feedback, nor on whether goal history feeds the year-end review instead of starting from memory. Between the cycles, nothing is evidenced beyond the modules' existence. 6 9 6
The HR IT Integrator
The captured goals and OKR pages confirm nothing about goal alignment, check-ins, 1:1 agendas or feedback requests, and I found no public information on whether goal history feeds the review. The question that matters to me — whether the year-end record draws on the year's work — goes unanswered. 6 9 6
The Skeptic
An OKR page and a downloadable goal-agreement template exist, but we found no public information on cascading or alignment, check-ins, 1:1 agendas, feedback requests, or any link into the review cycle. A downloadable template is a document outside the product, and that is all these pages show. 6 9
Learning, skills & succession
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Growing people rather than only rating them: learning paths or course delivery, a skills or competency framework, career paths and development plans, and talent reviews and succession planning for key roles.
0 — No development features; the product rates people but says nothing about developing them.
3 — A development-plan text field or a link to an external course catalogue, with no skills model and no succession view.
5 — Development plans linked to review outcomes, a configurable competency or skills framework, assigned learning content or integration with a named LMS, and career paths per role.
8 — Skills profiles per employee with gaps against role requirements, learning paths with completion tracking and mandatory training, talent reviews (such as a nine-box) with succession plans per key role, and internal mobility shown against open positions.
10 — Development is planned and measured: skills data maintained and versioned, learning outcomes linked to skills and reviews, succession coverage and risk reported per role, SCORM or xAPI content supported or a named LMS integrated both ways, and certificates and training records exportable.
The Head of HR
Training, LMS and skill-management pages were captured but gave no confirmed detail on learning paths, a skills or competency framework, career paths or succession planning. I found no public information on any of it, and I score only what the pages show. 7 10 11 10
The Managing Director
Pages for training management, an LMS and a skill management product exist, which signals learning ambitions, but we found no public information on a competency framework tied to review outcomes, learning paths with completion tracking, talent reviews or succession plans. I could not plan development for my people from this material, only guess at it. 7 10 11 10
The People Analyst
I own the skills model, the succession bench and the training budget, and on none of the captured training, LMS and skill-management pages did a single confirmed fact appear about skills profiles, gaps against role requirements, learning paths with completion tracking, talent reviews or succession plans. Development capability is unverified from public evidence, and that is where my buying decision starts. 7 10 11
The Works Council Member
Pages for training management, an LMS and skill management were captured, but we found no public information on a competency or skills framework, learning paths with completion tracking, career paths or succession planning. The vendor appears to market development modules; what they do for our people is not evidenced. 7 10 11
The HR IT Integrator
I found no public information on a skills or competency framework, learning paths with completion tracking, succession views or a named LMS integration from the captured learning, LMS and skill-management pages. Nothing here evidences SCORM or xAPI content or exportable training records. 7 10 11 7 10
The Skeptic
Training management, an LMS and a skills page are each marketed, yet no skills framework, no gap view, no learning-path tracking and no talent or succession view is evidenced. Whether the skills story is more than a tag list is not answerable from the captured pages — we found no public information on it. 7 10 11
Works council, visibility & AI disclosure
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What the employer can put in a works agreement: visibility and access rules per role, anonymity thresholds for surveys and upward feedback, retention and deletion of review data, access logging, and disclosure and control of every AI feature that summarises, scores or suggests ratings.
0 — Nothing stated about who sees which review data, how long it is kept, or what the AI features process; "anonymous" feedback with no threshold.
3 — Role-based access mentioned in general terms and an assurance of confidentiality, but no anonymity threshold, no retention setting and AI features described only as benefits.
5 — Visibility rules per role documented, a configurable minimum group size for anonymous results, retention or deletion of review data configurable, and each AI feature named with its inputs and an option to disable it.
8 — Field-level permissions and private versus shared notes stated, access to review data logged, retention per data type, AI features off by default or switchable per module with the model provider named, and documentation or templates aimed at works councils or a works agreement.
10 — The vendor publishes what a works agreement needs: a complete list of the data each module processes and who sees it, audit logs exportable, deletion runs reportable, AI features never rating or ranking employees without a human action, the EU AI Act position stated, and EU processing for the AI features.
The Head of HR
The security page does state single sign-on, least privilege and access monitoring in general terms, which is a first nod to who can reach data. But I found no public information on role-based visibility of review data, a minimum group size for anonymous results, retention or deletion settings, or what any AI feature processes — nothing here a works council could review and sign. 4 12 13
The Managing Director
The security page lists single sign-on, least privilege, access monitoring and logging, and a GDPR page and privacy policy exist, which is role-based access in general terms. We found no public information on an anonymity threshold for surveys or upward feedback, retention or deletion settings for review data, or any AI feature named with its inputs and a way to switch it off — so a works agreement could not be drafted from what is published. 3 4 12 13
The People Analyst
The trust page names single sign-on, least privilege and logging as general security practices, which speaks to access monitoring in broad terms. Beyond that we found no public information on per-role visibility of review data, a minimum group size for anonymous results, retention or deletion of review data, or how any AI feature that summarises or scores is disclosed and switched off — none of what a works agreement needs. 4 12 13
The Works Council Member
The trust page confirms single sign-on, least-privilege access control, logging and access monitoring, which is a real starting point — but I found no public information on visibility rules for review data, a configurable minimum group size for anonymous results, retention or deletion of ratings, or any AI feature that summarises or scores colleagues with an option to switch it off. Without public answers to who can read a manager's private note and how long ratings are kept, I cannot recommend signing a works agreement on this basis. 4 12 13
The HR IT Integrator
The security page lists access monitoring and logging among the vendor's controls, but I found no public information on visibility rules per role, a minimum group size for anonymous feedback, retention of review data, or which AI features summarise or score what. A works council would have nothing concrete to anchor an agreement on. 4 12 13
The Skeptic
The security page lists single sign-on, least privilege and logging — role-based access in general terms, with a GDPR page alongside — but we found no public information on a minimum group size for anonymous results, on retention or deletion of review data, or on what any AI feature processes and how to switch it off. That is general assurance, not the material a works agreement is built from. 4 12 13
HRIS sync, integrations & data portability
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How the tool fits next to the system of record and what leaves with the customer: employee and org-chart sync from the HR system, SSO and SCIM, collaboration-tool integrations, an API, and export of the full review, goal and feedback history.
0 — No HR-system integration and no export; employees and managers are maintained by hand and the history stays in the product.
3 — A CSV import of employees and a PDF export of single reviews, with no named HR-system integration and no API.
5 — Maintained sync with at least one HR system common in DACH (e.g. Personio, SAP SuccessFactors, HRworks), SSO, a documented API, and an export of review and goal data in a structured format.
8 — Several named HRIS integrations including org-chart and manager relations, SCIM provisioning, Microsoft Teams or Slack integration, webhooks, an API with published limits, and a bulk export of the complete review, goal and feedback history.
10 — Portability is designed in: a versioned API with a deprecation policy, a documented full export (structured data plus attachments) available at contract end, deletion that propagates to synced systems, and the vendor maintaining the German HRIS integrations itself.
The Head of HR
Single sign-on is named among the access-control capabilities, and integration and interface pages exist in the captured set, but they yielded no confirmed HR-system sync, SCIM provisioning or documented API. I found no public information on exporting the full review, goal and feedback history — the one thing I need at contract end. 4 14 15 15
The Managing Director
Dedicated integrations pages exist and single sign-on is listed on the security page, but we found no public information on a named HR-system sync such as Personio or SAP SuccessFactors, SCIM provisioning, a documented API, or export of the review, goal and feedback history. Without a named sync, my sixty people would be maintained by hand and the history would be a question mark. 4 14 15 15
The People Analyst
Single sign-on appears among the access controls on the trust page, but we found no public information on named HR-system sync such as Personio or SAP SuccessFactors, provisioning, a documented API, or export of the complete review, goal and feedback history. What leaves with the customer at contract end is not evidenced anywhere I can verify. 4 14 15
The Works Council Member
Single sign-on is confirmed and integration pages were captured, but we found no public information on a maintained sync with an HR system such as Personio or SAP SuccessFactors, a documented API, or a bulk export of the review, goal and feedback history. The portability questions that decide whether our data leaves with us at contract end are unanswered. 4 14 15
The HR IT Integrator
The captured integration and interface pages gave no confirmed named HRIS, no org-chart or manager-relation sync, no SCIM, no documented API and no bulk export of review and goal history — the exact things I need at go-live and at contract end. The only single sign-on mentioned is the vendor's own internal one on the security page, which tells me nothing about customer SSO. 4 14 15 15
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where performance, feedback and survey data lives, who the contracting entity is, and who the subprocessors are — including the AI providers that summarise reviews and feedback. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline. Weighted with the employment relationship in mind: these are judgements about people who did not choose the vendor.
0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated, subprocessors unnamed, and 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 AI features run outside the EU without saying so.
5 — EU hosting as standard and an EU contracting entity, but parts of the chain — AI summaries, email, analytics or support — are non-EU without an explained safeguard.
8 — EU hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, subprocessor list published including AI providers, and a DPA that covers employee performance 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 features run within the EU on providers the customer can see.
The Head of HR
The privacy policy names the contracting entity, Factorial HR S.L. of Barcelona, an EU company, and hosting is stated as Amazon Web Services and Azure with no region given. I found no public information on a subprocessor list including AI providers, on confirmed data residency, or on where AI processing runs — for judgements about employees who did not choose this vendor, that gap is decisive. 3 4
The Managing Director
The security page names Amazon Web Services and Azure as infrastructure with no region stated, and we found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, data residency or the subprocessor list, including any provider behind AI features. For judgements about employees who did not choose the vendor, there is almost nothing here I could put in front of a works council. 3 4
The People Analyst
The provenance note places the vendor in Barcelona and the trust page names Amazon Web Services and Azure as infrastructure providers, but we found no public information on where performance and feedback data is hosted, the contracting entity's jurisdiction was not confirmed on the captured pages, and no subprocessor or AI-provider list appears. For judgements about employees who did not choose the vendor, that much unexplained chain weighs heavily. 1 3 4
The Works Council Member
The privacy policy names a Spanish entity and the trust page lists Amazon Web Services and Azure as infrastructure, but we found no public information on hosting regions, a subprocessor list, or where any AI processing would run. As the pages stand, I cannot tell the council where data about our colleagues is processed or by whom. 3 4
The HR IT Integrator
The privacy page names Factorial HR S.L. of Barcelona as the entity and the trust page names AWS and Azure as hosting providers, but the captured pages state no hosting region for performance data and I found no public information on subprocessors, AI providers included. An EU-presented vendor with the rest of the chain unconfirmed leaves employee data questions open rather than answered. 1 3 4
The Skeptic
The only substantive facts are infrastructure named as Amazon Web Services and Azure, with no region statement in the capture, and a privacy policy whose captured text did not confirm the contracting entity's jurisdiction. We found no published subprocessor list and no public information on where any AI features process. 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 basis (per employee, per active user, per module), which of reviews, goals, engagement surveys and learning sit in which tier, add-ons for AI or analytics, and the minimum term.
0 — No public prices at all; every module is a sales conversation.
3 — A starting price exists, but the pricing basis or which modules it covers is unstated — the invoice is unknowable.
5 — Module or tier prices public with the pricing basis given, but at least one commonly needed piece (engagement surveys, learning, AI features, HRIS integration) is unpriced.
8 — Every module or tier priced publicly with its basis, add-on prices listed, minimum headcount, minimum term and VAT treatment given.
10 — Complete price computability: the annual invoice derivable for a given headcount and module mix, with every add-on, implementation fee and overage published.
The Head of HR
A pricing page was captured, but it yielded no confirmed price figure, pricing basis, or statement of which of reviews, goals, surveys or learning sits in which tier. I found no public information on add-on prices, minimum terms or VAT treatment, so the real annual cost is not derivable from the captured pages. 2
The Managing Director
A pricing page exists and was captured, but we found no public information on the pricing basis, which of reviews, goals, surveys and learning sit in which tier, add-on prices or the minimum term. I cannot compute an annual invoice for sixty people from public material, and that is a hard stop before any sales conversation. 2
The People Analyst
We found no public price figures on the captured pricing page: no pricing basis, no statement of which modules sit in which tier, no add-on prices and no minimum term. From public evidence alone the annual invoice is not computable. 2
The Works Council Member
A pricing page exists among the captures, but we found no public information on any price, the pricing basis, which modules sit in which tier, or the minimum term. From public pages alone, the annual invoice is not computable. 2
The HR IT Integrator
A pricing page was captured but it confirmed no price figure, pricing basis, module-to-tier mapping, minimum term or VAT treatment; I found no public information from which a buyer could compute an annual cost. From where I stand, every module remains a sales conversation. 2 1
The Skeptic
A pricing page exists, yet not one figure was confirmed from it: no price, no per-employee or per-user basis, no module-to-tier mapping, no minimum term. We found no public information from which a buyer could compute any part of the annual invoice. 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 ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Factorial
Is Factorial European?
Yes. whats-best.ai classifies Factorial as EU-Made.
Where does Factorial store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Factorial have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Factorial?
As of 15 Oct 2026, the panel rates Culture Amp (3/5), Small Improvements (3/5) and Leapsome (2.5/5) highest among the other 15 Talent Management products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is Small Improvements (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Factorial alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 3 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Legal entity, Data residency, Subprocessors. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- We could not confirm any pricing information on the vendor’s own pages as captured, so this page shows none rather than a statement we cannot stand behind. Know more? Tell us
- 206 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
- 36 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
- 25 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
- 21 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
- 13 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
- 9 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
- 7 data 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 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
- 3 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are 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 (15)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage factorialhr.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 3 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page factorialhr.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy — names the entity factorialhr.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Security / trust page factorialhr.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Performance management factorialhr.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 3 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Goals / OKR factorialhr.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 3 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Learning / training factorialhr.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 3 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Performance reviews & calibration — found from sitemap factorialhr.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Goals, OKRs & continuous feedback — found from sitemap factorialhr.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Learning, skills & succession — found from sitemap factorialhr.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 3 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Learning, skills & succession — found from sitemap factorialhr.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Works council, visibility & AI disclosure — found from sitemap factorialhr.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Works council, visibility & AI disclosure — found from sitemap factorialhr.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 HRIS sync, integrations & data portability — found from sitemap factorialhr.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 15 HRIS sync, integrations & data portability — found from sitemap factorialhr.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 3 Oct 2026 Details →