Time Tracking & Attendance
Mitrefinch
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Mitrefinch Ltd · www.mitrefinch.com
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.
Mitrefinch at a glance
- Vendor
- Mitrefinch Ltd
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Mitrefinch 1.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Mitrefinch, acquired by OneAdvanced, sells a cloud-based Time and Attendance product scoped as time tracking, absence management and rostering, alongside its own HMRC-recognised payroll. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 3 Nov 2026; evaluated by the panel 4 Nov 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Mitrefinch, acquired by OneAdvanced, sells a cloud-based Time and Attendance product scoped as time tracking, absence management and rostering, alongside its own HMRC-recognised payroll. Scoring is strongest on payroll export at 4-5: the in-house payroll with automated pay cycles, payslip access and pay rate control gives recorded hours a destination inside one suite, though we found no public information on the handoff — surcharges, lock steps, formats such as DATEV. Absence and planning scores sit at 3: the module names are present, but entitlements, sickness, holiday calendars and coverage checks are not. Weakest are project and billing and sovereignty, both at 0, with no public information on project or client dimensions and no sovereignty attributes on record. Working time law scores range 0-2: higher scores credit working time being recorded at all; lower ones found no public information on breaks, rest rules, retention or the German recording duty. Time capture scores 2-3, with no public information on clock-in methods, terminals or offline capture. The captured page shows no prices; buying runs through consultants and a demo.
Speaks for it
- Payroll export is the bench's strongest area at 4-5, with the vendor's own HMRC-recognised payroll as an in-house destination for recorded hours.
- Automated pay cycles, payslip access and pay rate control are stated for the payroll product.
- Absence management and rostering are both named in the product's stated scope, holding absence and planning scores at 3.
- A demo can be booked through expert consultants, and support is named as case logging and live chat.
Held against it
- Project and billing scores sit at 0, with no public information on projects, clients, cost centres, billable status or client reporting.
- Sovereignty scores sit at 0: no sovereignty attributes are on record, and hosting location, contracting entity, subprocessors and a data processing agreement are all unpublished.
- We found no public information on how time is captured — clock-in paths, terminals, mobile or offline capture, and correction workflows are all undescribed.
- The only compliance recognition named is HMRC on the payroll side, a UK tax authority; we found no public information on break and rest rules, retention or the German recording duty.
- Beyond the module names, we found no public information on entitlement balances, sickness recording, holiday calendars, substitution workflows or coverage checks.
Best for
- You run UK payroll and want recorded hours to land in the vendor's own HMRC-recognised payroll rather than a third-party system.
- You want time tracking, absence management and rostering named together in a single cloud workforce management product.
- You track attendance for internal operations rather than for client billing or project costing.
Avoid if
- You bill time to client projects, cost centres or billable rates — project and billing scores sit at 0.
- You must evidence German working-time-law compliance from public documentation — working time law scores range 0-2, and break, rest and retention rules are publicly undocumented.
- You need sovereignty facts — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Capture in the real workplace | 1 of 5 |
| Working-time law & audit record | 1 of 5 |
| Absence & shift planning | 1.5 of 5 |
| Project, cost-centre & billing | 0 of 5 |
| Payroll handoff | 2 of 5 |
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 — Not a time-recording tool; working time cannot be captured in the product.
3 — Clocking in and out or a timer in the browser or an app, with manual entries; offline use, shared terminals and corrections are basic or not described.
5 — Web and mobile apps for clocking in and out, a shared kiosk, terminal or badge option or offline capture that syncs, and corrections requested by the employee and approved by a manager.
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
The captured page names a cloud-based Time and Attendance product with time tracking, so working time can be recorded in principle. But it describes no capture path at all: we found no public information on mobile apps, terminals, kiosks or badges for workshop and field crews, offline handling, or how corrections are requested and approved. 1
The Payroll Officer
The captured page names a cloud-based 'Time and Attendance' product whose scope is 'time tracking, absence management, and rostering', which confirms a real attendance tool rather than a task timer. How time is actually captured is not described on this evidence — no clock-in method, terminal or kiosk, offline behaviour or correction workflow appears — so the level reached is the product's existence, not a documented capture model. 1
The Works Council Advocate
A cloud-based Time and Attendance product with time tracking in its scope is confirmed, so this is a recording tool; but we found no public information on how a shift is actually captured — nothing on clock-in paths, terminals or kiosks, offline behaviour, GPS or geofencing, or how a correction is requested and who approves it. A works council cannot co-determine on a capture surface that is not published. 1
The Agency Owner
The captured page names a cloud-based Time and Attendance product with time tracking, so working time gets recorded, but we found no public information on how — mobile clocking, terminals, offline use or correction workflows are all undescribed. For my mix of desk staff and site crews I cannot tell from this evidence who clocks in, where, or what happens when the connection drops. 1
The Field Supervisor
The captured page names a cloud-based Time and Attendance product with time tracking, so working time does get recorded somewhere — but we found no public information on any capture path I could put on a site: terminals, kiosks, mobile clock-in, offline capture and corrections are all undescribed. A cloud-deployment description with no word on shared terminals or offline work leaves my crews clocking in through a browser and filling Friday's sheet from memory. 1
The Skeptic
The vendor sells a cloud product named Time and Attendance whose stated scope includes time tracking, so working time is captured somewhere in the suite. But the captured page describes no clock-in method, no terminal or kiosk, no app, no offline behaviour and no correction workflow, so we cannot say how a real workforce — desk, field or shift — actually clocks on. 1
Working-time law & audit record
n/r
n/r
n/r
n/r
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 — A project or task timer that keeps no attendance record of working time (start, end, breaks).
3 — Start, end and break times recorded per day with a working-time report per employee; ArbZG checks and retention are basic or not described.
5 — Start, end and breaks recorded for the recording duty (BAG 2022 or ArbZG named), automatic break rules, warnings on the daily maximum or the rest period, and overtime balances.
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, a change log on entries, 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
This is sold as Time and Attendance software, which is an attendance product rather than a task timer, but the page stops at the category name. We found no public information on the German recording duty, break and rest rules, retention, overtime balances or an inspection-ready export; the only compliance reference on the page is HMRC recognition on the payroll side, a UK tax matter. 1
The Payroll Officer not rated — no public information
We found no public information on working-time-law compliance or the audit record. The captured page mentions 'compliance' only inside the payroll product's pay-rate scope and gives no information on breaks, maximum hours, rest periods, retention or the recording duty for the time record itself. 1
The Works Council Advocate not rated — no public information
We found no public information on breaks, rest periods, maximum hours, retention, tamper protection or the German recording duty; the only compliance wording on the captured page attaches to the payroll product's HMRC recognition, a UK tax authority. I read the vendor page captured below and nothing on it bears on working-time law. 1
The Agency Owner not rated — no public information
We found no public information on breaks, rest periods, overtime limits, retention or any change log on entries; the only compliance language on the captured page sits inside the payroll description around pay rates. Nothing addresses working-time recording law or an inspection-ready record. 1
The Field Supervisor
The Time and Attendance product records working time, which is the foundation an audit record is built on, and the only compliance recognition on the captured page is HMRC recognition of the separate payroll product — a UK tax authority, not German working-time law. We found no public information on break and rest rules, maximum-hour warnings, retention, change logs, or anything naming the German recording duty. 1
The Skeptic not rated — no public information
We found no public information on how the record would satisfy the German recording duty: no breaks, daily maximum, rest periods, retention period or change log appears on the captured page, and its one compliance mention belongs to payroll pay rates under HMRC recognition. 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 — Neither absence handling nor shift planning is part of the product.
3 — Vacation requests with approval and an absence calendar, or a basic shift plan; entitlement rules and rostering are basic or not described.
5 — Absence management with entitlement balances, sickness recording and an absence calendar, plus shift or duty planning with templates or employee availability.
8 — Public-holiday calendars per location, pro-rata entitlement and carry-over, 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
Absence management and rostering are both named alongside time tracking as what the software simplifies, which covers the halves of attendance at name level. Everything I need to run 200 people is undocumented: we found no public information on entitlement balances, sickness handling, holiday calendars, substitution or swap workflows, or rest-aware shift templates. 1
The Payroll Officer
Absence management and rostering are both named in the product's stated scope, which is the basic absence-and-shift-plan footing. We found no public information on entitlement balances, sickness recording, holiday calendars, substitution workflows or rest and coverage checks, so the evidence reaches the basic level and no further. 1
The Works Council Advocate
Absence management and rostering are both named in the Time and Attendance scope, which is the level of a basic absence calendar and shift plan; we found no public information on entitlement balances, carry-over, sickness recording, holiday calendars, substitution workflows or rest-period checks. A roster that publishes against a works agreement needs far more than a module name. 1
The Agency Owner
Absence management and rostering are both named in the time and attendance scope, so the two halves exist in name. We found no public information on entitlement balances, sickness handling, holiday calendars, shift templates or coverage warnings — the detail I would need before trusting it with a team roster. 1
The Field Supervisor
Absence management and rostering are both named as part of the same product, which is the right half of attendance, but that naming is all the capture holds: we found no public information on entitlement balances, sickness recording, holiday calendars, swap workflows or coverage checks. A named capability is a start; a roster my supervisors can run on needs the detail. 1
The Skeptic
Absence management and rostering are both named in the Time and Attendance product's scope, which sits at the level of a basic absence calendar plus a shift plan. Entitlement balances, sickness recording, holiday calendars, substitution and coverage checks are not described on the page we read. 1
Project, cost-centre & billing
n/r
n/r
n/r
n/r
n/r
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; the product records time without any project, task or cost-centre dimension.
3 — Time booked to projects or clients with a report per project; rates and billable status are basic or not described.
5 — Projects and tasks with a billable flag, hourly rates, reports per project and client, and an export or integration toward invoicing.
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 not rated — no public information
We found no public information on project, cost-centre, billable status or client-reporting capabilities. The captured page names time tracking, absence management and rostering plus a payroll product, and says nothing about projects, clients or billing, so no level on this criterion can be judged from what was read. 1
The Payroll Officer not rated — no public information
We found no public information on project, task or cost-centre allocation, billable status, hourly rates or invoicing. The captured page presents workforce management and payroll scope only, and names no project or client dimension for the recorded time. 1
The Works Council Advocate not rated — no public information
We found no public information on booking time to projects, clients, tasks or cost centres, on hourly rates or billable status, or on any export toward invoicing. The captured page describes time tracking, absence and rostering in general terms, so no fact bears on this criterion. 1
The Agency Owner
We found no public information on projects, clients, tasks, cost centres, billable status, rate cards or budget warnings; the captured page presents the product purely as workforce management — time tracking, absence management, rostering and payroll. For billing forty people's hours to clients, this evidence gives me nothing to run an agency on. 1
The Field Supervisor not rated — no public information
We found no public information on projects, tasks, cost centres, billable status or client billing on the captured page; the time product is presented around tracking, absence and rostering, with payroll as a separate product. I read the vendor page captured and it bears on none of this. 1
The Skeptic not rated — no public information
We found no public information on projects, tasks, cost centres, billable flags or client reporting; the captured page scopes the product as time tracking, absence management, rostering and payroll, and names no project or client dimension. 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 — Payroll is outside the product: it records client or project time only and prepares nothing for payroll.
3 — An export (CSV, Excel or PDF) of hours and absences for the payroll office; named formats and surcharges are basic or not described.
5 — A named payroll integration or a documented export format for at least one major system (e.g. DATEV LODAS/Lohn und Gehalt), 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
Payroll exists as the vendor's own HMRC-recognised product with automated pay cycles, payslip access and pay rate control, which suggests the month can be paid inside one vendor's suite rather than retyped into a third party. We found no public information on how time records actually flow into that payroll, on DATEV or any German payroll format, or on surcharges, time accounts and lock steps before transmission. 1
The Payroll Officer
The vendor runs its own payroll product — 'HMRC-recognised payroll software' with 'automated pay cycles', payslip access and 'pay rate control' — so the recorded month has an in-house destination rather than a spreadsheet handoff, though the recognition named is HMRC, a UK authority. We found no public information on the handoff itself: how hours, absences, overtime or night, Sunday and holiday surcharges travel from the time record into a pay run, and any lock step or retro handling for corrections after the close, are not described. I credit the automated in-house destination and stop there because the bridge from the time record is undocumented. 1
The Works Council Advocate
The vendor markets its own HMRC-recognised Payroll product with automated pay cycles, payslip access, pay-rate control and reporting alongside the time and attendance software, which is more than a bare export; however, we found no public information on how recorded hours, absences and overtime actually flow into it, or on any lock step before transmission. HMRC recognition speaks to UK payroll — we found no public information on DATEV, Lohn und Gehalt or other named handoffs. 1
The Agency Owner
The vendor sells its own HMRC-recognised payroll with automated pay cycles, payslip access and pay rate control, which is a named payroll destination rather than a spreadsheet dump. But we found no public information on how hours, absences, overtime or surcharges travel from the time record into the run, and no German system such as DATEV appears — the evidence is UK-shaped and silent on the handoff mechanics. 1
The Field Supervisor
The vendor sells its own HMRC-recognised payroll software with automated pay cycles and payslip access, so a payroll destination exists under the same roof — more than a bare export promise. But how a closed month of hours, absences and overtime actually travels into a pay run is not described on the captured page, and we found no public information on surcharges, lock steps, or named formats such as DATEV. 1
The Skeptic
Payroll sits inside the vendor's own suite — an HMRC-recognised product with automated pay cycles, payslip access and pay-rate control — so the recorded month is not handed to a third party by default. What the captured page leaves entirely open is the handoff itself: no export format is documented, and nothing on overtime, night or holiday surcharges, or any lock step before transmission. 1
European sovereignty
panel opinion
n/r
n/r
n/r
n/r
n/r
n/r
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. Dimensions not proven either way are unknown, not non-European.
0 — Vendor, contracting entity and hosting shown to be outside the EU, and no data processing agreement offered.
3 — A privacy policy and a data processing agreement exist and one European element is proven (an EU contracting entity or representative, or EU hosting as an option); the rest of the chain is not stated.
5 — An EU contracting entity and EU hosting stated, with a data processing agreement; the subprocessor list is not published in full or includes non-EU providers without a stated safeguard.
8 — EU or DACH hosting with a named data-centre provider, EU contracting entity, the full subprocessor list published with locations, 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 not rated — no public information
We found no public information on where the data is hosted, the contracting entity, a data processing agreement, or the subprocessor chain; no sovereignty facts were established in either direction. The one corporate fact is the acquisition by OneAdvanced, and the captured page does not state where that group or its data centres sit. 1
The Payroll Officer not rated — no public information
We found no public information on European sovereignty. No hosting location, contracting-entity seat, data-processing agreement or subprocessor list is on record for this vendor; the only corporate fact captured is that Mitrefinch 'has joined OneAdvanced'. 1
The Works Council Advocate not rated — no public information
No sovereignty attributes are on record: we found no public information on hosting location, data-centre provider, contracting entity, subprocessors or a data processing agreement. Unknown is not non-European, but nothing captured proves any European element either. 1
The Agency Owner not rated — no public information
We found no public information on hosting location, contracting entity, data processing agreement or subprocessors, and no sovereignty attributes were on record. The captured page carries UK signals — HMRC recognition and an 0330 phone number — but proves nothing about where client data would sit. 1
The Field Supervisor not rated — no public information
The sovereignty record holds no attributes, and we found no public information on hosting location, the contracting entity, subprocessors or a data processing agreement on the captured page. Unknown is not the same as non-European, but there is nothing here a buyer could verify. 1
The Skeptic not rated — no public information
No sovereignty attributes are on record: the captured page names only cloud deployment and ownership by OneAdvanced, and we found no public information on hosting country, data-centre provider, the contracting entity's location, subprocessors or a data processing agreement. Unknown dimensions stay unknown, not non-European. 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 public "from" price per user or one priced tier; how cost scales with modules, hardware or minimum seats is unclear.
5 — Per-user prices public for the main tiers with the billing period stated and the main inclusions given; some pieces (terminal hardware, planning module, payroll export) may be unpriced.
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 not rated — no public information
We found no public information on pricing: the captured page gives no figures, tiers or terms and routes buyers to consultants and a demo. From what was read, an annual invoice for a 200-person mixed workforce cannot be computed from anything public. 1
The Payroll Officer not rated — no public information
We found no public information on pricing. The captured page shows no per-user price, tier, billing period or hardware cost, and offers instead to 'speak to our expert consultants' or 'book a demo'. 1
The Works Council Advocate
The captured page shows no price for any product, and every route to the product runs through expert consultants and a demo booking. An annual invoice for a given headcount cannot be computed from what is public here; whether a priced tier or calculator exists elsewhere on the site, we found no public information. 1
The Agency Owner
We found no public price information on the captured page; the buying path offered is expert consultants and a booked demo. I cannot begin to compute an annual invoice for my headcount from this evidence. 1
The Field Supervisor
The captured page's answer to price is a conversation: speak to expert consultants or book a demo, with not one figure, tier or billing period on it. From this evidence a buyer cannot compute a year's invoice for their headcount. 1
The Skeptic
The captured page names no price for any product, tier, seat or billing period, and the only buying route it offers is a demo booked through expert consultants. Because just the vendor's main page was captured, we cannot rule out a pricing page elsewhere, so we stay just above the bottom of the scale rather than on it. 1
Questions about Mitrefinch
Is Mitrefinch European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Mitrefinch is based.
Where does Mitrefinch store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026.
Does Mitrefinch have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Mitrefinch?
As of 4 Nov 2026, the panel rates TimeTac (3.5/5), clockodo (3/5) and GFOS (3/5) highest among the other 27 Time Tracking & Attendance 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 TimeTac (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Mitrefinch alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 3 Nov 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- We found no public information on pricing on the pages we read (mitrefinch.com). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- We could not confirm any compliance 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
- 2 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
Sources (1)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.mitrefinch.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →