whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Time Tracking & Attendance

Mitrefinch

Provenance unknown Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: not determined

0–5 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

Mitrefinch: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai Mitrefinch: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai (dark)

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

Mitrefinch alternatives, European ones first →

Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.

The Works Council Advocate

Has co-determination over how working time is recorded (BetrVG §87 (1) 6) and will not approve a system that watches more than it measures. Asks what GPS actually stores, who can read an individual's day, what is logged and what can be switched off. Reads "productivity insights" as a warning.

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

Scored by The Works Council Advocate

Capture in the real workplace

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Working-time law & audit record

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Absence & shift planning

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Project, cost-centre & billing

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Payroll handoff

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

European sovereignty

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Pricing transparency not rated — the vendor publishes no price

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

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

What we left out

A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.

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

Sources (1)

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

  1. 1 Vendor page www.mitrefinch.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →