whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Time Tracking & Attendance

Time Doctor

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 Time Doctor LLC · timedoctor.com

Report an error on this page Is this your product? →

Link to this page

Time Doctor: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai Time Doctor: 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.

Time Doctor at a glance

Vendor
Time Doctor LLC
Headquarters
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
Data hosting
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
Free plan
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
Starting price
“Then keep Time Doctor for as little as $6.70 per user/month.” (vendor’s words) source, captured 13 Oct 2026
Panel verdict
The AI panel rates Time Doctor 1.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Time Doctor is a time tracking and attendance product from Time Doctor LLC. how scores are made
As of
Vendor pages captured 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources

Time Doctor alternatives, European ones first →

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

The Field Supervisor

Weighted verdict

Supervises crews on sites with no reliable signal and no desks. Judges everything by whether it works in a basement at 6am: offline capture, a shared terminal, corrections a foreman can make without a support ticket. A cloud-only app is a tool that will be filled in from memory on Friday.

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

Scored by The Field Supervisor

Panel median The Field Supervisor This judge’s scores over the panel median. Each label opens its reasoning below.
Scores per criterion, in stars out of 5
Criterion Panel median The Field Supervisor
Capture in the real workplace 2 of 5 2 of 5
Working-time law & audit record 0.5 of 5 1 of 5
Absence & shift planning 1.5 of 5 1 of 5
Project, cost-centre & billing 2 of 5 2 of 5
Payroll handoff 2.5 of 5 2.5 of 5
European sovereignty 0 of 5 0.5 of 5
Pricing transparency 0 of 5 0.5 of 5

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 — 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.

Report an error

The Field Supervisor

Offline tracking is documented as a designed state — data stored locally and syncing when the connection returns — which is the one thing that matters in a basement at 6am. Beyond that the pages show manual time entry and manual or automatic timesheet approval, but I found no public information on shared terminals or kiosks, GPS or geofenced check-in, or bulk corrections with a record of who changed what, so capture reads as one person one device rather than a crew solution. 1 2 8

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 — 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.

Report an error

The Field Supervisor

Nothing in the captured material speaks to the German recording duty — I found no public information on break handling, daily maximum or rest-period checks, or a retention period. Work schedules can be set up via CSV import and there is an attendance feature, but there is no evidence of anything here that would survive an inspection conversation. 1 4

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 — 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.

Report an error

The Field Supervisor

A leave-tracking article and work schedules loaded by CSV import exist, but the pages stop at the titles: I found no public information on approval workflows, automatic entitlement, carry-over, sickness recording, holiday calendars or substitution handling. A foreman could import a roster; I see no evidence the system manages vacation around it. 1 4 5

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; 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.

Report an error

The Field Supervisor

The Projects Report analyses time per user per project with user, project and date filters and CSV, XLS or PDF export, which is a real allocation dimension for a services firm. I found no public information on billable flags, rate cards per person or role, cost centres or budget warnings, so the road from recorded time to an invoice still runs through export and re-entry. 1 6 8

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 — 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.

Report an error

The Field Supervisor

Timesheets can be approved manually or automatically and sent directly to named platforms — Rippling and Xero AU among them — with salary and hourly setup and a custom export feature. For a German buyer the named systems include no DATEV or Lohn und Gehalt path, and I found no public information on night, Sunday or holiday surcharges or a lock step before transmission. 1 8 9

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.

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.

Report an error

The Field Supervisor

The captured material gives me nothing to verify: I found no public information on hosting region, the contracting entity's location, or a subprocessor list. A buyer who must know where the working-time record physically lives cannot establish that from these pages. 1 2

Report an error

Pricing transparency

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.

Report an error

The Field Supervisor

The only pricing-related statement I found is a free trial with no credit card required. I found no public information on per-user prices, plan tiers, billing period, minimum seats or VAT treatment, so a buyer cannot compute any annual invoice from the captured pages. 8

Report an error

Questions about Time Doctor

Is Time Doctor European?

Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Time Doctor is based.

Where does Time Doctor store data?

Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.

Does Time Doctor have a free plan?

Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.

What are the best alternatives to Time Doctor?

As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates TimeTac (3.5/5), clockodo (3/5) and ZEP (3/5) highest among the other 25 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: Time Doctor 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 Time Doctor? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (9)

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

  1. 1 Vendor page timedoctor.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Capture in the real workplace — found from sitemap help.timedoctor.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Capture in the real workplace — found from sitemap support.timedoctor.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Absence & shift planning — found from sitemap support.timedoctor.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Absence & shift planning — found from sitemap support.timedoctor.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Project, cost-centre & billing — found from sitemap help.timedoctor.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Project, cost-centre & billing — found from sitemap support.timedoctor.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Payroll handoff — found from sitemap www.timedoctor.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Payroll handoff — found from sitemap support.timedoctor.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →