Time Tracking & Attendance
Quinyx
Provenance unknown Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 1 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Quinyx AB · www.quinyx.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
Quinyx (vendor Quinyx AB) is an AI-powered workforce management platform aimed at frontline, shift-heavy industries, and the scores show one well-evidenced strength surrounded by thin public documentation. Absence and planning leads at 3-4: compliant, cost-efficient schedules created in seconds, tailored to skills, service levels and budgets, plus mobile shift swaps and AI demand forecasting, all stated on the vendor page. Time capture scores 2-3 — a named time-tracking module with mobile-first access for every worker, but no public information on offline capture, shared terminals or correction workflows. Working-time law is flat at 2, its compliance claim naming no rule or market. The weakest counted scores are payroll export at 0-1, with no named payroll system or documented export format, and project and billing flat at 1, which is cost visibility rather than billing. Sovereignty scores 1-2, and we found no public information on hosting region or subprocessors. No flagged split was flagged and spreads never exceed one point, so this reads as a shared assessment rather than a contested one; no prices are published, and that criterion carries no weight here.
Speaks for it
- Absence and planning carries the highest scores at 3-4, with compliant, cost-efficient scheduling, mobile shift swaps and AI demand forecasting stated on the vendor page.
- Time tracking is a named platform module with mobile-first access for every worker, scoring 2-3.
- A trust center, a compliance-policies page and a developer portal are published.
- Labor spend, overtime and attendance are tracked in one place for cost visibility.
- The vendor is recognised by analysts including IDC and Gartner, per the vendor page.
Held against it
- Payroll export scores 0-1, the lowest counted band, with no named payroll system or documented export format on the captured pages.
- Project and billing is flat at 1, offering cost visibility but no invoice-facing path in evidence.
- Working-time law is flat at 2, resting on a generic compliance claim that names no rule.
- Sovereignty scores 1-2, and we found no public information on hosting region, data-centre provider or subprocessors.
- The absence half of the strongest criterion is unevidenced, with no public information on vacation entitlement, carry-over or sickness recording.
Best for
- You run shift-heavy operations in retail, warehousing and logistics, hospitality and QSR, facility management or healthcare and scheduling is your primary purchase driver.
- You want AI demand forecasting and mobile shift swaps for frontline workers with mobile-first access.
- You need labor spend, overtime and attendance in one place and already handle payroll and client billing in other systems.
Avoid if
- You bill clients from recorded time — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You need a documented handoff into payroll — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You must produce inspection-ready working-time records — working-time law scored 2 on a generic claim that names no rule.
- Your works council or procurement requires documented hosting and subprocessor terms — 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
Time tracking sits in the platform alongside mobile-first access for every worker, which would cover my desk and field people, but I found no public information on offline capture, shared terminals or kiosks for the workshop floor, or any correction-and-approval workflow. For a mixed 200-person operation that is half the capture story unaccounted for. 1
The Payroll Officer
Time tracking is named as a platform module with mobile-first access and shift swaps for every worker, which puts capture beyond a desk browser. But we found no public information on offline capture, shared terminals or badge check-in, geofencing with stated limits, or any correction workflow with approval and an audit trail. 1
The Works Council Advocate
The vendor shows time tracking as a platform module with "mobile-first access for every worker" and attendance tracked in one place, which puts capture on the phone as well as the desk — but we found no public information on offline capture, shared terminals or kiosks, badge or GPS check-in, or any correction workflow with approval. For field and shift crews the decisive questions — what happens without a network, and who approves and who sees a change — are not answered by anything captured. 1
The Agency Owner
A time-tracking module and "mobile-first access for every worker" covers the desk and the phone, which is the floor. We found no public information on offline capture, shared kiosks or terminals, GPS check-in, or a correction and approval workflow. 1
The Field Supervisor
The page commits to a time-tracking module and 'mobile-first access for every worker', which covers web and phone but nothing I can verify for a site without signal. We found no public information on offline capture, kiosks or badge terminals, or a correction workflow a foreman could run — the things that decide whether Friday's paperwork matches Monday's clock. 1
The Skeptic
Time tracking exists as a named module and the page promises "mobile-first access for every worker", but that is the entire capture story. We found no public information on shared terminals or badge readers, offline behaviour, geofenced check-in, or any correction and approval workflow — so what a warehouse crew or deskless site worker actually does at clock-in is not shown. 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
The pages promise compliance built in across schedules and shifts and headline zero compliance violations, but I found no public information on break rules, the eight- and ten-hour maxima, the eleven-hour rest period, retention, or anything mapping features to the German recording duty. That is a marketing claim, not an inspection-ready record. 1
The Payroll Officer
The captured pages claim compliance is "built in, not bolted on" and "automatically supporting labor law requirements across schedules and shifts", plus a marketing figure of zero compliance violations, but nothing evidences break handling, the daily maximum, the eleven-hour rest period, retention, or any German recording duty. A compliance slogan about schedules is not an inspection-ready time record. 1
The Works Council Advocate
Beyond the claim that compliance is "built in, not bolted on", automatically supporting "labor law requirements across schedules and shifts", we found no public information on the German recording duty, break or rest-period or maximum-hours handling, retention, or any export built for an inspection. An advertising line about "zero compliance violations" tells me nothing about how the record would survive being looked at by an authority, which is the question that decides co-determination for me. 1
The Agency Owner
"Compliance built in, not bolted on – automatically supporting labor law requirements across schedules and shifts" is a generic claim aimed at schedules, and "zero compliance violations" is a customer outcome, not a feature. We found no public information on break rules, daily maximums, rest-period checks, retention, the German recording duty, or any export built for an inspection. 1
The Field Supervisor
'Compliance built in, not bolted on' and a customer's zero-violations claim are all the labor-law evidence here, and both are generic. We found no public information on the German recording duty, break or rest-period rules, daily maximums, or retention — I could not show an inspector a record from these pages. 1
The Skeptic
"Compliance built in, not bolted on – automatically supporting labor law requirements across schedules and shifts" is the compliance story in full, and it names no rule, no module and no market. We found no public information on break handling, the 8/10-hour daily maximum, the 11-hour rest period, retention, or an inspection-ready export; "zero compliance violations" is a customer outcome, not a feature that produces one. 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 planning is clearly real — compliant schedules tailored to skills, service levels and budgets, swap workflows on mobile, and AI demand forecasting — but I found no public information on vacation entitlement, carry-over or sickness recording. Without the absence half, the roster data means little to me operationally. 1
The Payroll Officer
Planning is genuinely evidenced — compliant schedules tailored to skills and budgets, mobile shift swaps, and AI demand forecasting — which is more than a basic roster. We found no public information on vacation entitlement, carry-over, sickness recording, or holiday calendars, so the absence half of the criterion rests on nothing published. 1
The Works Council Advocate
Rostering is genuinely evidenced — schedules tailored to skills, service levels and budgets, created "in seconds", with shift swaps and mobile access for every worker — but we found no public information on vacation requests and entitlement, carry-over, sickness recording, holiday calendars or an absence calendar. The scheduling half of attendance is visible and the absence half is dark, and a roster without vacation and sickness data is not yet something a works council can judge. 1
The Agency Owner
Scheduling is genuinely evidenced — "compliant, cost-efficient schedules in seconds – tailored to skills, service levels, budgets", AI demand forecasting, and shift swaps on mobile. But we found no public information on vacation entitlement, carry-over, sickness recording, holiday calendars or substitution workflows, which is the other half of the criterion. 1
The Field Supervisor
Scheduling is the pitch: 'compliant, cost-efficient schedules in seconds', shift swaps from the phone, and AI demand forecasting. We found no public information on vacation entitlement, carry-over, sickness recording or holiday calendars, so the roster half is strong on paper while the absence half is unverified. 1
The Skeptic
This is the one area the page actually feeds: compliant, cost-efficient schedules tailored to skills, service levels and budgets, mobile shift swaps, and AI demand forecasting are all stated. The absence half is silent — we found no public information on vacation requests, entitlement and carry-over, sickness recording, or holiday calendars — so the planning side scores and the absence side stays unevidenced. 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
Labour spend, overtime and attendance are tracked in one place, which is a cost view rather than allocation; I found no public information on projects, tasks, cost centres, billable flags, rate cards or any client-facing export. The industries pitched are frontline shift businesses, not ones billing recorded time to clients. 1
The Payroll Officer
The captured pages track labor spend, overtime and attendance in one place, which is cost visibility for frontline operations rather than allocation. We found no public information on projects, tasks, cost centres, billable status, rates, or any path from recorded time to an invoice. 1
The Works Council Advocate
The vendor tracks "labor spend, overtime, and attendance in one place", which is cost visibility, not allocation; we found no public information on projects, tasks, cost centres, billable flags, rates, budgets or any invoice-ready export. For an agency or professional-services buyer there is nothing captured here to bill a client from. 1
The Agency Owner
"Track labor spend, overtime, and attendance in one place" is cost visibility, not billing. We found no public information on projects, tasks, cost centres, billable flags, rate cards, budget warnings, approval-before-billing or any invoice-ready export — for a firm living on the gap between recorded and billable, none of the product I need is in evidence. 1
The Field Supervisor
'Track labor spend, overtime, and attendance' is cost visibility, and the named industries — retail, logistics, hospitality, healthcare — are shift businesses, not time-and-materials ones. We found no public information on projects, tasks, cost centres, billable flags, rate cards or any invoice-ready export. 1
The Skeptic
Beyond "Track labor spend, overtime, and attendance in one place" — internal cost visibility — we found no public information on projects, tasks, cost centres, billable flags, rate cards, budgets or any invoice-facing export. For an agency or professional-services buyer this is attendance only. 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
The captured pages state no payroll route: I found no public information on a named payroll system, a documented export format, surcharge handling or any lock step before transmission. The only connectivity hint is a developer portal, which tells me an API exists but nothing about how the month reaches payroll. 1
The Payroll Officer
No payroll handoff is described: we found no public information on any named payroll system, on a documented export format, or on night, Sunday and holiday surcharges, time-account settlement and corrections after the close. A developer portal suggests some integration surface exists, but as published, nothing ties the recorded month to a payroll run — which to me reads as a month someone will retype. 1
The Works Council Advocate
A developer portal and a trust center are the only integration signals in the capture; we found no public information on any named payroll system, a documented export format, surcharge handling, time-account transfer or a lock step before transmission. As far as the captured pages go, the closed month reaches payroll by no stated path. 1
The Agency Owner
We found no public information on how the recorded month reaches payroll — no named system, no documented export format, no surcharge handling, no lock step. The only integration-related item on the captured pages is a developer portal link. 1
The Field Supervisor
We found no public information on a payroll path — no named system, no export format, no surcharge handling, nothing a tax adviser could receive. The nearest items on the captured pages are a generic developer portal and labor-cost tracking, which tells me nothing about how the closed month reaches payroll. 1
The Skeptic
We found no public information on any payroll handoff: no named payroll system, no documented export format, no surcharge handling, no approval-and-lock step. A developer portal is an API, not a payroll connection, and nothing captured says the month reaches payroll as anything other than a retyped spreadsheet. 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
No sovereignty attributes are on record: the pages name neither a hosting region nor a single subprocessor, and I found no public information on the contracting terms for European data. The vendor being a Swedish company gives an EU address, but nothing documented I could contract on. 1
The Payroll Officer
No sovereignty attributes are on record: we found no public information on hosting region, contracting entity location, or a subprocessor list. A trust center with compliance and policies pages is the only published sign of a documented posture. 1
The Works Council Advocate
The vendor line names Quinyx AB, which reads as a Swedish contracting entity, but nothing further was published in what we captured: no hosting region, no named data-centre provider, no subprocessor list, no certifications. A works council cannot verify from these pages where the working-time data of its people physically sits or who else touches it. 1
The Agency Owner
The captured pages name Quinyx AB as the vendor and point to a trust center, and the name suggests a Swedish-registered entity. Beyond that we found no public information on hosting region, data-centre provider, certification, or any subprocessor list. 1
The Field Supervisor
The contracting entity is Quinyx AB, a Swedish company, and a trust centre with compliance policies is referenced — that is the European footing. We found no public information on hosting region, the data-centre provider, or subprocessors, so a buyer cannot see where the workforce data sits or who touches it. 1
The Skeptic
The vendor entity reads as Swedish (Quinyx AB), but the trail ends there: we found no public information on hosting region, data-centre provider, certification, or a single named subprocessor, and the independently sourced sovereignty attributes came back empty. A trust center and a compliance-policies page exist, yet nothing captured says they contain a hosting or subprocessor list. 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
I found no public information on prices at all — no per-user figure, no billing period, no module or hardware pricing — so I cannot compute even a rough annual invoice for two hundred heads. Every tier would be a sales conversation. 1
The Payroll Officer
We found no public information on pricing: no per-user figure, no tiers, no billing period, and no price for hardware or modules. A buyer cannot compute any part of the annual invoice from the captured pages; the 376% ROI and "$3.67M net present value" are value claims, not prices. 1
The Works Council Advocate
We found no public prices at all — no per-user figure, no tiers, no billing period, no minimum term, no VAT treatment; every number appears to sit behind a sales conversation. A buyer cannot even begin to compute an annual invoice for their headcount from these pages. 1
The Agency Owner
No price appears on the captured pages — no per-user figure, no tiers, no billing period, no VAT treatment; the only numbers present are marketing outcomes such as "$3.67M net present value delivered" and "376% ROI". There is nothing here from which to compute an annual invoice. 1
The Field Supervisor
We found no public information on pricing — no per-user figure, no tiers, no billing period, no hardware or module prices, no VAT treatment. A buyer cannot compute an annual invoice from these pages; every number is a sales conversation. 1
The Skeptic
The page will quote a buyer "376% ROI" and "$3.67M net present value" but not a single price: no tier, no per-user figure, no billing period, no minimum term, no hardware or module cost. Value is quantified to the dollar while the invoice is not computable from anything public. 1
European sovereignty — proven facts
1 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 | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | US CLOUD Act reach ⚠ unverified | 0/2 pts | 2 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. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- Weak sourcing — Subprocessors. Stream.io applies only if Quinyx Messenger is part of the license (EU customer data confined to EU per the same row); the webhost is contracted as Amazon Web Services EMEA SARL, the Luxembourg-based EU entity of US-parented AWS.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- We could not confirm any pricing information on the vendor’s own pages as captured, so this page shows none rather than a statement we cannot stand behind. Know more? Tell us
- 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
- 5 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
- 4 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 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
- 1 integrations 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 (6)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.quinyx.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Security / trust page — found from the homepage trust.quinyx.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Capture in the real workplace — found from sitemap www.quinyx.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Working-time law & audit record — found from sitemap www.quinyx.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Absence & shift planning — found from sitemap www.quinyx.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Absence & shift planning — found from sitemap www.quinyx.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →