Time Tracking & Attendance
DeskTime
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 DeskTime (Draugiem Group) · desktime.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
DeskTime, from Draugiem Group, is automatic time tracking software for productivity insights, and the captured pages describe a desk-bound product. Time capture scored a uniform 2: a downloadable desktop app with automatic and manual tracking is public, but offline time runs through calendar apps and we found no public information on a mobile app, a shared terminal or a correction workflow with approval. Absence and planning drew the highest scores, 2 to 4, the widest spread among the criteria; judges split between crediting the named shift scheduling and absence calendar and weighing mechanics the pages never state — entitlement, carry-over, sickness recording, coverage checks. Payroll export scored a consistent 1 — no named payroll system or defined export format is public — and working time law scored 0 to 1, with no public information on break handling, rest periods or retention. Sovereignty scored 0 to 1: no sovereignty attributes are on record, though GDPR compliance, encryption in transit and at rest, and ISO 27001 and 27701 are claimed. A free tier and a 14-day free trial with no credit card required are public.
Speaks for it
- A downloadable desktop app with automatic and manual time tracking is publicly evidenced, earning time capture a uniform 2.
- Shift scheduling and an absence calendar are named features, and absence and planning drew the highest scores at 2 to 4.
- Encryption in transit and at rest, GDPR compliance, and ISO 27001 and 27701 certification are claimed, alongside two-factor authentication and 99.95% uptime.
- Project tracking, reports, exports, an integrations page and API documentation are named, holding project and billing at a consistent 3.
- A free tier, a 14-day free trial with no credit card required, and a free demo account are public.
Held against it
- Payroll export scored a consistent 1, and we found no public information on a named payroll system or a defined export format.
- Working time law scored 0 to 1, with no public information on break handling, rest periods or record retention.
- No sovereignty attributes are on record, and we found no public information on hosting region, contracting entity or subprocessors.
- Offline time is tracked via calendar apps, and we found no public information on a mobile app, a shared terminal or a correction workflow with approval.
- Monitoring features — screenshots, URL and app tracking, document title tracking, IP location — were flagged as needing negotiation before any works agreement.
Best for
- You run a desk-based team — the named industries include IT & software, consultants, agencies and developers — and want automatic desktop tracking with a project label.
- You want named shift scheduling and a shared absence calendar and can verify entitlement, carry-over and sickness mechanics with the vendor.
- Your payroll and invoicing run elsewhere, and generic exports plus documented API access are enough for the handoff.
- You want productivity analysis and monitoring, since screenshots, URL and app tracking and IP location are named features.
Avoid if
- You must show an inspector a compliant working-time record — we found no public information on break handling, rest periods or retention.
- You need a documented path into payroll — no named payroll system or export format is public.
- Your crews work away from a computer or without signal — we found no public information on a mobile app, a shared terminal or offline capture that syncs.
- You must document hosting region or subprocessors before signing — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
The scores
Capture in the real workplace
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How time actually gets recorded across the workforces a buyer has — desk staff, field and site crews, shift and deskless workers — and what happens when the network is not there.
0 — One browser timer and nothing else; anyone away from a desk records nothing.
3 — Web plus a mobile app, but no offline capture, no shared terminal, and corrections are an admin task rather than a workflow.
5 — Web, mobile and at least one shared capture point (kiosk, terminal or badge), with offline capture that syncs, and a correction workflow with approval.
8 — Several capture paths including hardware terminals or badge readers, reliable offline handling, GPS or geofenced check-in where the vendor states its limits, and bulk correction with an audit trail of who changed what.
10 — Capture fits the workforce rather than the reverse: desk, deskless, field and shift models all first-class, offline as a designed state rather than a failure mode, and every correction attributable, reasoned and reversible.
The Operations Lead
Everything captured is built around a computer: a desktop app with automatic tracking, manual entry, URL and app tracking, screenshots and IP location, aimed at desk and remote staff. We found no public information on a mobile app, a shared terminal or kiosk for workshop and site crews, or offline capture that syncs — the only offline mention is calendar apps used to record offline time. There is also no correction or approval workflow anywhere in the evidence. 1
The Payroll Officer
Capture is built for people at a computer: automatic desktop tracking, manual entries, screenshots and IP location, with offline time said to be handled through calendar apps. We found no public information on a mobile app, a shared kiosk or terminal, capture that survives a network loss and syncs, or a correction workflow with approval — so field and shift workforces have no evidenced path in. 1
The Works Council Advocate
Automatic tracking on a desktop app plus manual entry serves desk staff, but the pages name no mobile app, no shared terminal and no offline capture beyond tracking offline time through calendar apps, and we found no public information on a correction workflow with approval. What is marketed alongside capture — screenshots, URL and app tracking, document title tracking, IP location — measures the employee rather than the time, and I would have to negotiate every one of those off before any works agreement. 1
The Agency Owner
Automatic and manual time tracking run through a downloadable desktop app, and offline time is handled only via calendar apps — a workaround, not a designed offline state. I found no public information on a mobile app, a shared terminal or kiosk, GPS or geofenced check-in, or any correction workflow with approval, which makes this hard to place with field and shift crews. 1
The Field Supervisor
A desktop app with automatic tracking, manual entry and IP location is captured, but I found no public information on a mobile app, a shared terminal or kiosk, or offline capture that syncs — the "offline time tracking" wording covers logging away-from-desk hours through a calendar app, not working without signal. Nothing is evidenced on a correction workflow a foreman could run, so this serves a desk and stops there. 1
The Skeptic
Desk capture is well covered — automatic time tracking, manual time tracking and a downloadable desktop app — but the offline claim is 'calendar apps to help you track offline time', which is retro-filling, not capture that syncs. I found no public information on a mobile app, shared terminals or badge readers, and no correction workflow with approval appears anywhere on the captured page, so deskless and field workforces are unevidenced. 1
Working-time law & audit record
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether the record satisfies the German recording duty (BAG 2022, § 3 ArbSchG) and the ArbZG rules around it — breaks, maximum hours, rest periods, retention — and whether it survives being inspected.
0 — Hours are summed and nothing else; no break handling, no limits, no retention statement.
3 — Break deduction exists but is a flat rule; no daily maximum or rest-period checks, and no stated retention period.
5 — Configurable break rules, warnings on the 8/10-hour daily maximum and the 11-hour rest period, and per-employee reports covering the recording duty.
8 — The ArbZG rules are modelled rather than approximated: break and rest enforcement with documented exceptions, overtime and time-account rules, the two-year retention handled by the system, and an export built for an inspection.
10 — The vendor treats the record as evidence: tamper-evident entries with full change history, retention and deletion executed per statute, documented handling of on-call, standby and travel time, and published guidance mapping features to the ArbZG sections they serve.
The Operations Lead
Attendance management and customizable settings are named, but we found no public information on break handling, daily hour limits, rest periods, retention, or anything mapping the record to the German recording duty or ArbZG. For a 200-person operation recording everyone since the BAG ruling, the captured pages give me nothing to put in front of an inspector. 1
The Payroll Officer
The product names attendance management, but we found no public information on break rules, the eight- and ten-hour daily maximums, the eleven-hour rest period, retention of the record, or any treatment of the German recording duty. For a payroll run this is hours to sum, not a record I could put in front of an inspector. 1
The Works Council Advocate
We found no public information on break handling, daily maximum hours, rest-period checks or a retention period, and no export framed for an inspection; attendance management, shift scheduling and generic reports are all the pages offer toward the German recording duty. As published, this record would not survive being shown to an inspector. 1
The Agency Owner
The compliance story stops at encryption, GDPR alignment, ISO 27001/27701 and uptime; I found no public information on the German recording duty, break handling, daily maximum hours, rest periods or a retention period. For an inspection I would have to treat this record as unverified. 1
The Field Supervisor
Attendance management is named as a feature, but I found no public information on break handling, daily maximums, rest periods, retention or anything aimed at the German recording duty. For a crew that gets inspected, none of what makes a record survive an inspection is evidenced. 1
The Skeptic
The pages claim GDPR compliance, encryption and ISO 27001/27701 certification, but working-time law is absent entirely: no break handling, no daily maximum or rest-period checks, no retention statement, and not a word about the German recording duty. For a buyer asking which feature makes a compliance claim true, the honest answer is that no working-time claim is made at all. 1
Absence & shift planning
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Vacation, sickness and the shift or duty roster — the half of attendance that decides whether the time data means anything.
0 — No absence handling; vacation lives in a separate calendar or spreadsheet.
3 — Vacation requests with approval, but entitlement is manual, carry-over is not handled and there is no rostering.
5 — Automatic entitlement and carry-over, sickness recording, an absence calendar, and basic shift planning with availability.
8 — Public-holiday calendars per location, pro-rata entitlement, substitution and swap workflows, shift templates with qualification and rest-period checks, and coverage warnings before publication.
10 — Planning and recording are one system: rosters that respect statutory rest and the works agreement, absence that reflows the plan automatically, and forecast-versus-actual reporting a team lead can act on.
The Operations Lead
Shift scheduling and an absence calendar are both named features, which is more than a spreadsheet. We found no public information on vacation request approval, entitlement calculation, carry-over, sickness recording, holiday calendars per location, substitution workflows or coverage checks before a roster is published. Feature names on a homepage will not run my duty roster for mixed office and field teams. 1
The Payroll Officer
An absence calendar and shift scheduling are both named as features, which is more than nothing. We found no public information on vacation entitlement or carry-over, sickness recording, approval workflows, holiday calendars by location, or coverage checks before publication — I would still build the vacation ledger by hand. 1
The Works Council Advocate
An absence calendar and shift scheduling are named among the features, which is a start, but we found no public information on vacation requests and approval, entitlement calculation, carry-over or sickness recording, so I cannot tell whether entitlement is automatic or left to a spreadsheet. 1
The Agency Owner
An absence calendar and shift scheduling are both named as features, which at least puts rostering on the table. But I found no public information on vacation requests with approval, entitlement or carry-over, sickness handling, or coverage and rest checks before a plan is published. 1
The Field Supervisor
An absence calendar and shift scheduling are listed by name, which covers the bare bones of both halves. I found no public information on entitlement calculation, carry-over, sickness recording, holiday calendars or coverage checks, so this reads as a shared calendar rather than a planner. 1
The Skeptic
Shift scheduling and an absence calendar are named features alongside attendance management, so vacation and rosters exist in the product, but the captured pages say nothing about how entitlement or carry-over is computed, sickness recording, holiday calendars or coverage warnings. Named features without stated mechanics land this between thin request handling and a working planning module. 1
Project, cost-centre & billing
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether recorded time can carry the allocation an agency, workshop or professional-services firm needs — project, task, cost centre, billable status — through to an invoice or a client report.
0 — Attendance only; no project, task or cost-centre dimension at all.
3 — A free-text note or a single project field, with no rates, no billable flag and no per-project reporting.
5 — Projects and tasks with a billable flag and per-project reports, plus a rate per person or per project.
8 — Multi-level structure (client, project, task, cost centre), rate cards by person, role and project, budget tracking with warnings, and an invoice-ready export.
10 — Time becomes revenue without re-entry: approval before billing, rate rules that survive a rate change mid-project, client-facing reports, and a maintained handoff into named accounting or invoicing systems.
The Operations Lead
Project tracking, task tracking and a project management integration are evidenced, so recorded time can carry a project dimension. We found no public information on rates, a billable flag, cost centres, budget tracking or any invoice-ready export. That is a project field without the money machinery an agency or workshop needs. 1
The Payroll Officer
Project tracking is a named capability with tasks handled through project-management integrations, but we found no public information on rates, a billable flag, cost centres, budget tracking, or any invoice-ready output. Recorded time stays time; the billing step has no evidenced owner. 1
The Works Council Advocate
Project tracking and project and task tracking via integrations are named, but we found no public information on a billable flag, rates, budgets, cost centres or an invoice-ready export — allocation with no visible path to billing, despite agencies and consultants being named as target industries. 1
The Agency Owner
Project tracking and task tracking are named, with integrations to project management software, but that is the whole story: I found no public information on billable flags, rate cards, cost centres, budget warnings or an invoice-ready export. Time I cannot rate and bill is time I give away, so this is the first thing I would interrogate in a demo. 1
The Field Supervisor
Project tracking and task tracking are captured alongside generic reports and exports. I found no public information on billable flags, rate cards, budgets or invoice-ready output, so time can be labelled with a project and that is about where the evidence stops. 1
The Skeptic
Project tracking, reports and exports are named, but the captured pages give no rates, no billable flag, no cost-centre or client structure, and no per-project reporting a services firm could invoice from. That is a single project dimension attached to tracked time, with the billing half of the criterion entirely unevidenced. 1
Payroll handoff
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How the recorded month reaches payroll — DATEV, Lohn und Gehalt, an in-house system or the tax adviser — and how much of it is automated rather than retyped.
0 — No payroll path stated; the month leaves as a spreadsheet someone retypes.
3 — Generic CSV said to be usable for payroll, with no named system, no defined format and no handling of surcharges.
5 — A named payroll integration or a documented export format for at least one major system, covering hours, absences and overtime.
8 — Vendor-maintained integration with a named provider, covering night, Sunday and holiday surcharges, time accounts and mid-month changes, with a lock step before transmission.
10 — Payroll is designed for, not exported to: several named systems maintained, an auditable approval and lock, retro handling for corrections after the close, and the tax adviser given their own scoped access.
The Operations Lead
Reports, exports and an integrations page with API documentation are the entire handoff picture, and we found no public information on a named payroll system, a documented export format, surcharge handling or anything DATEV-related. As far as the captured pages show, the month would leave as a generic export someone rekeys. 1
The Payroll Officer
Reports, exports, integrations and an API are all the captured pages say about getting the month out, and no payroll system is named anywhere. We found no public information on DATEV, Lohn und Gehalt, surcharges for night, Sunday and holiday work, time accounts, or a defined payroll format — this is a month someone retypes. 1
The Works Council Advocate
Only generic "Reports" and "Exports" appear on the page; we found no public information on any named payroll system, a defined export format, surcharge handling or a lock step, so as published the month leaves as something someone retypes. 1
The Agency Owner
The only payroll-adjacent evidence is a generic exports feature plus an API; we found no public information on any named payroll system, a documented format, surcharge handling or a lock before transmission. As captured, the month leaves as a file someone retypes. 1
The Field Supervisor
Reports and exports are listed generically, but I found no public information on any named payroll system, a documented export format, or surcharge and overtime handling. The recorded month has no evidenced path into payroll at all. 1
The Skeptic
The only payroll-adjacent facts are generic 'Exports', an integrations page and API documentation; I found no public information on a named payroll system, a defined export format, surcharge handling or any lock before transmission. The month's journey to payroll is undocumented. 1
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where the data lives, who the contracting entity is, who the subprocessors are, and whether that is documented rather than assumed. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; scored here as this buyer weighs it.
0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting region unstated or non-EU, subprocessors not named.
3 — EU hosting offered as an option, but the contracting entity is non-EU or the subprocessor list is absent.
5 — EU hosting as standard and an EU contracting entity, but the subprocessor chain includes non-EU providers without an explained safeguard.
8 — EU or DACH hosting with a named data-centre provider, EU contracting entity, full subprocessor list published, and any non-EU processing named with its legal basis.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: vendor, entity, hosting and every subprocessor in the EU, data-centre certification published, and an on-premises or private-cloud option for buyers who need it.
The Operations Lead
GDPR compliance, ISO 27001 and 27701 certification and encryption in transit and at rest are claimed, which is a security posture I can weigh. But we found no public information on the hosting region, the contracting entity's location or a single subprocessor. Encryption does not tell me where my 200 people's working-time data actually lives. 1
The Payroll Officer
No sovereignty attributes are on record: the captured pages state no hosting region, no contracting-entity location and no subprocessor list. GDPR compliance and ISO certifications are claimed, but they say nothing about where my month of time data physically sits. 1
The Works Council Advocate
No sovereignty attributes are on record: hosting region, contracting entity and every subprocessor are unstated, and the GDPR, ISO 27001 and ISO 27701 claims answer a different question than where our employees' data sits and who can reach it. For co-determination this is not enough to even begin the conversation. 1
The Agency Owner
We found no public information on hosting region, contracting entity or subprocessors — the only signals are GDPR-compliance and ISO 27001/27701 claims with encryption at rest and in transit. For a DACH buyer that is an assumption to verify, not a documented chain. 1
The Field Supervisor
GDPR compliance, encryption in transit and at rest, and ISO 27001/27701 certification are claimed, but I found no public information on hosting region, contracting entity or subprocessors. A compliance claim without a location does not tell a German buyer where the data actually sits or who processes it. 1
The Skeptic
The pages publish encryption in transit and at rest, GDPR compliance and ISO 27001/27701 claims, but say nothing about where data is hosted, the contracting entity behind it, or a single subprocessor — sovereignty attributes are on record as absent. A GDPR sentence is not a hosting region or a subprocessor list, and a buyer who must document their chain gets neither here. 1
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the real annual invoice for their headcount — including terminals, modules and minimums — from public pages alone.
0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.
3 — A per-user headline exists, but hardware, modules or a minimum seat count are unpriced or unmentioned.
5 — Per-user prices public for the main tiers with the billing period stated, but at least one commonly needed piece (terminal hardware, planning module, payroll export) sits in an unpriced bundle.
8 — Every tier and module priced publicly with per-user maths, billing period, minimum term and VAT treatment stated; only genuinely custom work lacks a number.
10 — Complete price computability: a calculator or table producing the annual invoice for a given headcount and module selection, including hardware, setup and renewal terms.
The Operations Lead
The only pricing facts on the captured page are a free tier ('Get started for free') and a '14 day free trial No credit card required'. We found no public information on paid tier prices, per-user figures, billing period, minimum terms or VAT treatment, so I cannot compute an annual invoice for my headcount from what is published. 1
The Payroll Officer
A free starting point, a 14-day trial with no credit card required, and reseller economics are all that carries a number publicly. We found no public information on per-user tier prices, billing period, minimum term or VAT treatment — no buyer could compute their annual invoice from these pages. 1
The Works Council Advocate
The pages state "Get started for free", a "14 day free trial" and "No credit card required", but no per-user price, billing period, minimum term or VAT treatment for paid use; a buyer — or a works council budgeting its own trial — cannot compute the annual invoice from what is published. 1
The Agency Owner
The public pages state a "14 day free trial" with "No credit card required" and "Get started for free", but we found no per-user price, tier, billing period, minimum term or VAT treatment. The annual invoice for a given headcount cannot be computed from what is public. 1
The Field Supervisor
A free tier and a 14-day no-card trial are stated publicly, but I found no per-user prices, billing periods, module pricing or VAT treatment in the captured material. A buyer cannot compute an annual invoice for their headcount from what is public here. 1
The Skeptic
A free tier and a 14-day trial without credit card are public, but I found no per-user price for any paid plan, no billing period, no minimum term and no VAT treatment on the captured page. A buyer cannot compute even a rough annual invoice from what is published. 1
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 | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | EU only ⚠ unverified | 3/3 pts | 3 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 22 Sep 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency. The residency statement appears only on the security/marketing page while the privacy policy itself names no server locations, and backups are only said to be stored 'across multiple data center locations' without naming them.
- Weak sourcing — Subprocessors. AWS serves only as hosting for 'additional services' in the EU (Ireland) region, but it remains a US-headquartered provider; Cloudflare, also US-based, is named for DDoS protection of the service.
- Weak sourcing — 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.
- 6 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
- 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
- 1 data fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 subprocessors 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
- 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 (9)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page desktime.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Privacy policy — found from the homepage desktime.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Security / trust page — found from the homepage desktime.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Capture in the real workplace — found from sitemap desktime.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Capture in the real workplace — found from sitemap desktime.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Absence & shift planning — found from sitemap desktime.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Absence & shift planning — found from sitemap desktime.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Project, cost-centre & billing — found from sitemap desktime.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Payroll handoff — found from sitemap desktime.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →