Talent Management
Kenjo
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Kenjo GmbH · www.kenjo.io
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.
Kenjo at a glance
- Vendor
- Kenjo GmbH
- 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
- Starting price
- “Starter Profitiere von einer digitalen Lösung für allgemeine Personalaufgaben und erledige die tägliche Verwaltungsarbeit mit einem einzigen...” (vendor’s words) source, captured 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Kenjo 2/5, the mean of 6 judges. Kenjo is strongest where its documentation is thickest: the 360-degree review cycle. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Kenjo is strongest where its documentation is thickest: the 360-degree review cycle. Performance review scores sit at 6, on self, manager, peer and bottom-up reviews, peer nomination with limits, custom and expert templates, a mandatory overall rating on potential and performance, and permission rules granular enough for a works agreement — codetermination and privacy scored 4. Pricing transparency is weakest, at 1 to 2: the plan pages say which functions sit in Starter, Growth and Connect, but we found no price figure, pricing basis, minimum term or VAT treatment, and the DATEV one-time fee is named without an amount. Goals and OKRs scored 2 to 3 — a named module, and we found no public information linking it to the year-end review. Sovereignty scores range from 2 to 4, split over how far the privacy policy carries: it states that all processing and storage occur within the EEA, particularly Germany, but that text addresses the vendor's own site, while contracting entity, hosting, subprocessors and where the AI features process stay unconfirmed. Integrations scored 4 to 6; learning and development 4.
Speaks for it
- A documented 360-degree review cycle — self, manager, peer and bottom-up reviews with peer nomination limits, custom and expert templates, and a mandatory overall rating on potential and performance, scoring 6.
- Permission rules granular enough for a works agreement — create, edit and delete reviews, view feedback for all or selected employees, and filter-bound Results and Compare tabs — with codetermination and privacy at 4.
- A broad, named integration catalogue — payroll including DATEV, ADP and SD Worx, Microsoft Entra ID and Google Workspace directory sync, Slack, Teams and BI tools — with a documented API, integrations and portability at 4 to 6.
- Plan pages that state which functions sit in Starter, Growth and Connect — 360° reviews from the entry plan, APIs and training administration at the top — with a 14-day free trial offered.
Held against it
- We found no price figure, pricing basis, minimum term or VAT treatment on the captured pricing pages, and the DATEV one-time fee is named without an amount — pricing transparency at 1 to 2.
- Goals and OKRs appear as a named module with meeting templates in the entry plan, and we found no public information on goal alignment, check-ins or any link to the year-end review — goals and feedback at 2 to 3.
- Contracting entity, ownership, product hosting and subprocessors are unconfirmed on the captured pages, and the AI product expert and Early Access Motor agents are announced with no provider, location or off-switch — sovereignty at 2 to 4.
- We found no public information on calibration across teams, rating distributions, employee sign-off or kept review history, which keeps the review cycle well-run but short of auditable.
- We found no public information on SCIM provisioning, webhooks, published API limits or a bulk export of the review, goal and feedback history, and the API sits only in the top plan.
Best for
- You are an SME without a talent team and want to run a full review cycle in-house — templates, an expert question library, automated emails and visible deadlines.
- You need documented permission granularity — who may view feedback and results under which filter rules — as drafting material for a works agreement.
- You run payroll on DATEV or ADP and manage identity through Microsoft Entra ID or Google Workspace, and are prepared to take the top plan for the documented API.
Avoid if
- You must compute an annual invoice before signing — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- Your year-end reviews must draw on goal and check-in history — the goals-and-OKR module appears by name, and we found no public information on check-ins, alignment or any link to the review.
- You must show a works council where the AI features process and which subprocessors sit behind the product — the captured pages leave these unconfirmed.
- You need APIs, training administration or bulk actions below the top tier — the pages place all of them in the Connect plan.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Performance reviews & calibration | 3 of 5 |
| Goals, OKRs & continuous feedback | 1.5 of 5 |
| Learning, skills & succession | 2 of 5 |
| Works council, visibility & AI disclosure | 2 of 5 |
| HRIS sync, integrations & data portability | 3 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1.5 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 1 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 pages show a real cycle: custom categories and question catalogs, own or expert templates, self, manager, peer and direct-report input, automatic reviewer assignment from the company structure, nomination windows with visible deadlines and automated emails, and a mandatory overall rating on potential and performance. Visibility is documented too — granular review permissions with filter rules and an admin-only status tab. We found no public information on calibration views with rating distributions, employee sign-off, or a kept review history per employee, which is exactly what I need to defend ratings in an audit. 5 6 7 8 9 11
The Managing Director
Templates, a question catalogue and all four review types — self, manager, peer and upward from direct reports — plus peer nomination with minimum and maximum counts, automated emails and visible deadlines: a real cycle I could run without outside help. I found no public information on calibration across teams, rating distributions, or criteria being fixed before the cycle began, which is what separates a tidy cycle from an auditable one. 5 6 7 8 9 11
The People Analyst
Custom templates, a question library, configurable categories and questions against chosen competencies, and four review types including peer nomination with limits are documented, and help-centre articles state in detail who may view feedback and results. I found no public information on calibration views across teams, rating distributions, criteria fixed before the cycle begins, or an export of the review history, which is what would make reviews auditable rather than merely well-run. 5 6 7 8 9 11
The Works Council Member
Self, manager, peer and bottom-up reviews with peer nomination and limits, custom templates plus an expert question library, a mandatory overall rating on potential and performance, and a detailed permission article on who may create, view and compare feedback are all documented. I found no public information on calibration across teams, rating distributions, an employee acknowledgement step, or review history kept per employee, which holds this at six. 5 6 7 9 11
The HR IT Integrator
Custom competency categories, expert and own templates, and four review types with peer nomination limits, deadlines and automated emails are documented in the help centre, and the permission articles state who may view feedback and results — enough for me to wire a cycle into the org structure. We found no public information on calibration views with rating distributions, review criteria per role or level, or an employee acknowledgement step, so this stops short of the auditable cycle I would need to stand behind. 5 6 7 9 11
The Skeptic
The 360-degree machinery is real and documented — peer nomination with set minimum and maximum limits, self, manager and bottom-up reviews, mandatory overall rating on potential and performance level, reviewer-side comparison, and unusually specific permission rules for who may view feedback and results. What I found no public information on is calibration: no rating distributions across teams, no attributed rating changes, no criteria fixed and versioned before the cycle, and no statement that the employee signs off on the finished review. 5 6 7 8 9 11
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 site names a goals-and-OKRs area, advertises regular continuous feedback, and ships meeting templates in the entry plan. We found no public information on check-ins, shared 1:1 agendas, goal alignment or cascading, or on whether the year-end review draws on any of it — so as far as the pages show, the cycle still starts from memory. 2 5 6
The Managing Director
Goals and OKRs appear as a named solution and meeting templates sit in the entry plan, but that is nearly all the public material says; I found no public information on goal alignment, check-ins, shared 1:1 agendas, or feedback flowing into the year-end review. This is the part I most need as a sixty-person company without a talent team, and it is the thinnest. 2 6 10
The People Analyst
A goals and OKR module is named in the solutions and footer listings and the vendor mentions receiving more regular feedback on performance, but I found no public information on goal alignment or cascading, progress check-ins, 1:1 agendas, or how feedback and goal outcomes feed the year-end review. A module name is not a capability I can plan a performance cycle around. 3 4 6
The Works Council Member
A goals-and-OKR solution is named in the site navigation and the product page promises "more regular feedback on employee performance", with meeting templates in the starter plan. Beyond those names I found no public information on goal alignment, check-ins, shared 1:1 agendas, or any link between goals and the year-end review. 2 4 6 10
The HR IT Integrator
Goals and OKRs appear by name in the module and solutions lists, with a marketing line on more regular feedback and meeting templates in the Starter plan, but we found no public information on goal alignment or cascading, progress check-ins, shared 1:1 agendas, or whether goal data feeds the year-end review rather than living beside it. 2 4 6 10
The Skeptic
Goals and OKRs appear as a named module in the solutions and footer lists, and the pages promise more regular feedback and meeting templates, but the captures show no alignment or cascading, no progress check-ins, no shared 1:1 agendas and no mechanism that pulls the goal and feedback record into the next review. On this evidence the year-end cycle starts from memory. 2 4 6
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
Competencies are configurable and drive the review questions, training administration sits in the top plan, and a talent matrix maps future leaders — more than a development-plan text field. We found no public information on development plans linked to review outcomes, learning paths with completion tracking, a named LMS, skills-gap profiles against role requirements, or internal mobility shown against open positions. 2 5 6
The Managing Director
There is a talent matrix for tracking future leaders, customisable minimum requirements and competencies, and training administration in the top plan, which goes beyond a bare development-plan field. I found no public information on learning paths with completion tracking, a named LMS integration, skills-gap reporting, or development plans tied to review outcomes. 2 5 6
The People Analyst
The top plan lists training administration, the vendor promotes a talent matrix for tracking future leaders, and reviews can be built on customisable competencies. I found no public information on skills profiles with gaps against role requirements, learning paths with completion tracking, a named LMS, career paths per role, or succession plans and coverage reporting for key roles, so development support stays thin against what I need. 2 5 6
The Works Council Member
Training administration sits in the top plan, competencies and minimum requirements are customisable, and a talent matrix is offered to "track and manage your future leaders", which is more than a text field. I found no public information on learning paths with completion tracking, skills profiles against role requirements, a named LMS, or succession plans per key role. 2 5 6
The HR IT Integrator
Customizable competencies, a talent matrix for future leaders and training administration in the top plan are evidenced, which is a start for skills-based development. We found no public information on learning paths with completion tracking, an LMS integration, career paths or development plans linked to review outcomes — and no training system appears in the integration list. 2 5 6
The Skeptic
There is a talent matrix for mapping future leaders, training administration sits in the top Connect plan, and competencies are customisable in the review context, with promotion appraisals built on them. We found no public information on a skills framework with gaps against role requirements, learning paths with completion tracking, career paths, succession plans per key role, or any LMS or SCORM integration. 2 5 6
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
Permissions are documented seriously: create, edit and delete reviews, view feedback for all or selected employees, Results and Compare tabs bound to filter rules, Pulse access per profile, and an admin-only status tab that stays out of the employee profile. But anonymous feedback is only described as something an admin enables, and we found no public information on a minimum group size for anonymous results, on configurable retention of review data, or on the inputs, provider or an off-switch for the AI features such as the product expert and the Motor agents. 1 4 7 9 11 12
The Managing Director
The permission profiles are genuinely documented — create, edit and delete reviews, view feedback for all or filtered employees, Pulse access rules — and anonymous feedback can be switched on for peers and direct reports. But I found no public information on a minimum group size behind that anonymity, on retention settings for review data, and the AI features (a product expert and the Early-Access 'Motor' AI agents) are presented purely as benefits. 1 7 11 12
The People Analyst
Role-based visibility is documented in unusual detail for both reviews and the Pulse module, including filter rules and separate permissions to view feedback versus results, and anonymous feedback can be enabled for peers and direct reports. I found no public information on a minimum group size for anonymous results, configurable retention of review data, access logging, or the inputs and off-switch of the AI features, which are the questions a works council asks first. 1 4 7 11 12
The Works Council Member
The permission documentation is genuinely usable for a works agreement — custom profiles with rules like "Employee is a subordinate", separate rights to view feedback and results, and a candid statement that only admins see who has started or completed a review. But no minimum group size is given for anonymous peer and bottom-up feedback, I found no public information on retention settings for customer review data, and the new AI agents addon is announced with no word on inputs, provider or an option to disable it — gaps I cannot sign. 1 4 7 9 11 12
The HR IT Integrator
Role visibility is documented down to specific permissions, filter rules such as subordinates only, an admin-only status view, and separate Pulse permissions — genuinely usable drafting material for a works agreement. However, we found no public information on a minimum group size for anonymous feedback, configurable retention of review data, access logging, or what the AI agents and the AI product expert process, where they run and how to switch them off; the published retention periods sit in the vendor's own privacy policy. 1 4 7 9 11 12
The Skeptic
The permission model is genuinely documented — who may view feedback for all or selected employees, results and compare tabs with filter rules such as subordinate-only, plus an admin-only status view and per-module permissions for Pulse. But the question I always ask goes unanswered: anonymous feedback can be enabled for peer and bottom-up reviews with no minimum group size stated, the published retention rules concern applicant and website data rather than configurable retention for review data, and the AI features (the AI product expert, the Motor AI agents) are presented as benefits with no inputs, provider, disable option or EU AI Act position named. 1 4 7 11
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
The integration list is genuinely broad — DATEV, ADP, SD Worx and other payroll, SAP Business ByDesign, Entra ID and Google directory sync, Slack, Teams and BI tools — with an API, its documentation and a one-off DATEV implementation fee. We found no public information on SCIM provisioning, webhooks, published API limits, or a bulk export of the complete review, goal and feedback history, and the API itself sits only in the top plan. 2 13 14
The Managing Director
The integration list is long and named — DATEV, ADP and SD Worx for payroll, Microsoft Entra ID and Google Directory Sync for identity, Slack, Teams, Power BI — and the API has public documentation. I found no public information on SCIM provisioning, webhooks, published API limits, or an export of the review, goal and feedback history, and the whole integration package sits in the top Connect plan. 2 13 14
The People Analyst
The integration catalogue is broad and named — payroll including DATEV, ADP and SD Worx, identity sync with Microsoft Entra ID and Google Workspace, Slack and Teams, BI tools, plus a documented API — with employee data managed in one place as the stated purpose. I found no public information on SCIM provisioning, webhooks, published API limits, or a bulk export of the complete review, goal and feedback history, and APIs sit behind the top plan with the DATEV integration priced as an unnamed one-time fee. 2 13 14
The Works Council Member
A long, named integration list covers payroll including DATEV, ERP, Slack and Microsoft Teams, identity management with Microsoft Entra ID and Google Workspace directory sync, plus a documented API — though APIs come only with the top plan and the DATEV setup carries a one-off fee with no amount stated. I found no public information on SCIM provisioning, webhooks, published API limits, or an export of the complete review, goal and feedback history. 2 13 14
The HR IT Integrator
A documented API (top plan only), directory sync with Microsoft Entra ID and Google Workspace, Slack and Teams, BI connectors and a long payroll list including DATEV give me real things to connect. But we found no public information on SCIM provisioning, webhooks, published API limits, SSO as such, inbound org-chart and manager-relation sync from a DACH HRIS, or a structured bulk export of the complete review, goal and feedback history — the export silence is what worries me most at contract end. 2 13 14
The Skeptic
The integration directory is broad and named — DATEV payroll with a one-time implementation fee of unstated amount, SAP Business ByDesign, Slack and Teams, Microsoft Entra ID directory sync — and an API is offered with documentation, gated to the Connect plan. What I found no public information on is the exit: SCIM provisioning, webhooks, published API limits, or a bulk export of the complete review, goal and feedback history at contract end. 2 13 14
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 commits all processing and storage to the EEA, particularly Germany, with no transfers outside, and the vendor presents itself as a Berlin company. But we found no public information on a subprocessor list, the contracting entity is not confirmed on the captured legal pages, and nothing states where the AI product expert or the Motor agents process — for judgements about people who did not choose the vendor, that gap weighs. 1 3 4
The Managing Director
The privacy policy states that all processing and storage happens within the EEA, in Germany, with no transfer outside it. I found no public information on subprocessors, on where the AI features run, or confirming the contracting entity on the captured pages, so a works-council conversation would start from a blank page. 1 3 4
The People Analyst
The vendor is a German company and the privacy policy states that all processing and storage occurs within the EEA, particularly Germany, with no personal data transferred outside the EEA. I found no public information confirming the hosting of product performance data for customers, the contracting entity details, or the subprocessors behind the AI features, so the chain a works agreement would depend on cannot be verified from the captured pages. 3 4
The Works Council Member
The privacy policy states that processing and storage happen within the EEA, in Germany, with no transfers outside it, but that text addresses the vendor's own site and applicant data. The captured pages do not confirm the contracting entity, the product's hosting or a single subprocessor, and the AI agents name no provider or location, so I cannot tell a works council where judgements about colleagues are processed. 1 4
The HR IT Integrator
The vendor's privacy policy states that all processing and storage occurs within the EEA, in particular Germany, and the company presents as Berlin-based. We found no public information on subprocessors, the contracting entity on the captured pages, or where the AI agents run and which provider serves them, so the chain behind the German front door stays unevidenced. 1 4
The Skeptic
The independently sourced attributes mark contracting entity, ownership, hosting and subprocessors as unconfirmed on the vendor's own captured pages, and the privacy policy's EWR-and-Germany statement speaks to the website's own processing rather than evidenced product hosting for employee data. No subprocessor list is published, and the Motor AI agents and AI product expert state no provider or processing location — for performance data on people who did not choose the vendor, that keeps this at the low end. 1 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
The pricing page lays out three plans and which functions sit where — 360° reviews from the entry plan, training administration, bulk actions and APIs only at the top — plus a 14-day trial. We found no public information on price figures, the pricing basis, minimum term or VAT treatment, and the DATEV one-time fee is named without an amount, so the annual invoice cannot be computed from the public pages. 2 10
The Managing Director
The pricing page publishes three tiers and says which functions sit where — 360° reviews from the entry plan, APIs and training administration only at the top — but we found no public price figure, no pricing basis such as per employee, and no minimum term; the DATEV integration carries a one-time fee whose amount is not given. The annual invoice is not computable from public pages, and the AI addon is Early Access. 1 2 10
The People Analyst
The pricing page publishes tier contents — 360° performance reviews from the entry plan, training administration and APIs reserved for the top plan, recruiting as an add-on — but I found no public price figures, no pricing basis per employee or per user, no minimum term, no VAT treatment and no stated amount for the DATEV one-time fee. The real annual invoice is not computable from public pages. 2 14
The Works Council Member
The plan pages show what sits in Starter, Growth and Connect, including that recruiting is an add-on and APIs only arrive with Connect, but no price figure, pricing basis, minimum term or VAT treatment appears on the captured pages and the DATEV setup fee is mentioned without an amount. A buyer cannot compute a single euro of the annual invoice from these pages, though a 14-day free trial is offered. 2 10
The HR IT Integrator
The plan pages do say which functions sit in Starter, Growth and Connect — reviews from the bottom tier, APIs and training administration only at the top, with a recruiting add-on and an unpriced one-time DATEV fee alongside a 14-day trial. We found no public prices, pricing basis, minimum headcount, minimum term or VAT treatment on the captured pages, so the annual invoice cannot be computed from what is published. 2 10
The Skeptic
The pricing page publishes a real tier structure with module contents — 360-degree reviews in Starter, training administration and APIs in Connect, Recruiting and ATS as an add-on, a DATEV one-time fee — but not a single figure: no price, no per-employee or per-user basis, no minimum headcount or term, no VAT treatment. A buyer can learn which plan contains what, and nothing about what any of it costs. 2 10
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 | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Kenjo
Is Kenjo European?
Yes. whats-best.ai classifies Kenjo as EU-Made.
Where does Kenjo store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Kenjo have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Kenjo?
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: Kenjo alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 13 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 — Data residency, Legal entity. 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.
- 20 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
- 15 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
- 5 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 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 pricing 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
- 2 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 (14)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.kenjo.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page www.kenjo.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Imprint www.kenjo.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Privacy policy www.kenjo.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Performance management www.kenjo.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Performance reviews & calibration — found from sitemap www.kenjo.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Performance reviews & calibration — found from sitemap help.kenjo.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Goals, OKRs & continuous feedback — found from sitemap help.kenjo.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Goals, OKRs & continuous feedback — found from sitemap help.kenjo.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Learning, skills & succession — found from sitemap www.kenjo.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Works council, visibility & AI disclosure — found from sitemap help.kenjo.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Works council, visibility & AI disclosure — found from sitemap help.kenjo.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 HRIS sync, integrations & data portability — found from sitemap www.kenjo.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 HRIS sync, integrations & data portability — found from sitemap www.kenjo.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →