whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Time Tracking & Attendance

TimeCamp

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 Camp sp. z o.o. · www.timecamp.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 Skeptic

Weighted verdict

Has read a great many pages claiming to be "BAG-konform" and wants to know which feature makes that true. Reads compliance claims for what they do not say: which module, at which tier, and whether the terminal in the photograph costs extra.

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

Scored by The Skeptic

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 Skeptic

A web app, desktop apps for Windows, Mac and Linux, and an offline mode that keeps tracking and syncs when back online are all stated, plus a timesheet approval module — but we found no public information on a mobile app, a shared kiosk or terminal, GPS or geofenced check-in, or bulk corrections with an audit trail. The AI agent's zero-touch logging is a desk-worker story; nothing shown addresses deskless or field crews. Offline as a designed behaviour and manager approval put this above the basic tier, but the missing capture paths hold it well short of the top. 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 — 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 Skeptic

The security page says the product "meets the highest security and data privacy requirements" and lists HIPAA and DCAA — US frameworks — while we found no public information on break rules, warnings on the 8/10-hour daily maximum or the 11-hour rest period, a retention period for the record, or any reference to the German recording duty. Not even a conformity claim is made for German working-time law; the GDPR badge is privacy, not ArbZG. Timesheet approvals are the only structural feature shown that an inspector would recognise, and they are not enough. 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 — 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 Skeptic

We found no public information on vacation requests or entitlement, carry-over, sickness recording, public-holiday calendars, or any shift or duty roster — nothing absence-related appears on the captured pages at any tier. The integrations shown reach Asana, Trello and Jira, which plan work but not absences or coverage. Per the published anchors, a wholly unevidenced capability scores at the bottom. 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; 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 Skeptic

Custom billing rates per user or project, a billable/non-billable separation, invoicing inside the system, Excel report export and a BigQuery pipeline are all stated, and the cheapest paid tier is literally named "Time & Billing". We found no public information on cost centres, budget tracking with warnings, or rate cards by role, and no named handoff into an accounting or invoicing system. In-system invoicing exceeds a mere export, but the professional-services chain stops before multi-level allocation. 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 — 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 Skeptic

We found no public information on any payroll path — no DATEV, no Lohn und Gehalt, no named payroll system, not even a generic CSV said to be usable for payroll; the integrations shown are project-management and BI tools. No surcharge, time-account or lock handling appears anywhere. The only month-end output shown is the Excel report export, which is exactly the spreadsheet-someone-retypes situation the lowest anchor describes. 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.

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 Skeptic

The vendor line names a Polish limited company while the page footer reads "Copyright © 2026 TimeCamp. Inc." — two different corporate suffixes, and the pages do not say which entity contracts; hosting region, data-centre provider and subprocessor list are all unevidenced and no sovereignty attributes were independently sourced. GDPR compliance appears as a badge claim, the AI features are said to run on the customer's own infrastructure, and a self-hosted/private-cloud option exists — but only in the Enterprise tier priced "On Request". An apparently European entity plus a self-hosting option lifts this just off the floor; nothing is documented. 1

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 Skeptic

Four tiers are publicly priced with both billing periods stated — Starter at $ 3.99 /mo per user billed annually or $5.49 month-to-month, Premium at $ 6.99 /mo or $9.99, Ultimate at $ 9.99 /mo or $13.99, and a free plan with unlimited users — so the SaaS arithmetic for a headcount is computable. But the AI Time Tracker is "billed by token usage" with no rate published, Enterprise is "On Request", and we found no public information on VAT treatment or minimum contract term. A buyer wanting the AI features or the self-hosted option cannot compute the annual invoice from public pages. 1

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

0 of 4 dimensions proven

Built only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.

Ownership Not determined — uncited Report an error
Data residency Not determined ⚠ unverified — uncited Report an error
Subprocessors Not determined ⚠ unverified — uncited Report an error

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 TimeCamp? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (13)

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

  1. 1 Vendor page www.timecamp.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Privacy policy — found from the homepage www.timecamp.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Security / trust page — found from the homepage www.timecamp.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Capture in the real workplace — found from sitemap help.timecamp.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Capture in the real workplace — found from sitemap www.timecamp.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Working-time law & audit record — found from sitemap www.timecamp.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Working-time law & audit record — found from sitemap help.timecamp.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Absence & shift planning — found from sitemap help.timecamp.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Absence & shift planning — found from sitemap www.timecamp.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Project, cost-centre & billing — found from sitemap help.timecamp.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  11. 11 Project, cost-centre & billing — found from sitemap www.timecamp.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  12. 12 Payroll handoff — found from sitemap www.timecamp.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  13. 13 Payroll handoff — found from sitemap www.timecamp.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →