whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Time Tracking & Attendance

timecockpit

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 software architects GmbH · www.timecockpit.com

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

Link to this page

timecockpit: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai timecockpit: 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.

timecockpit at a glance

Vendor
software architects GmbH
Headquarters
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
Data hosting
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
Free plan
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
Starting price
“Teams of up to 10 users pay a one-time €29.90 for the first year on the Starter plan” (vendor’s words) source, captured 20 Oct 2026
Panel verdict
The AI panel rates timecockpit 2.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. timecockpit is a web-based time tracking and attendance service from software architects GmbH. how scores are made
As of
Vendor pages captured 20 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 21 Oct 2026. all sources

timecockpit 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 1.5 of 5 1.5 of 5
Working-time law & audit record 3 of 5 3 of 5
Absence & shift planning 2 of 5 2 of 5
Project, cost-centre & billing 3.5 of 5 3.5 of 5
Payroll handoff 1.5 of 5 1.5 of 5
European sovereignty 3.5 of 5 3.5 of 5
Pricing transparency 2.5 of 5 3 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

What the pages show is a browser tool with a phone-friendly web app and a one-tap timer, and it lives on the network: the vendor's own mobile guide rates 3G as the minimum and lists an offline mode as a future feature, with a native app still under consideration — nothing my crews can lean on in a basement this week. We found no public information on shared terminals, badge or kiosk capture, or a time-entry correction workflow a foreman can run with approval and an audit trail. For site work that leaves time filled in from memory on Friday. 1 4 5

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

Rule sets for Austria and Germany ship out of the box — daily and weekly maxima, break thresholds with split options, night, weekend and public-holiday rest checks, and travel-time limits including active and passive travel — and the violations view lets me pull one worker's breaches over any period, even retroactively with the correct limit for that time. We found no public information on overtime and time-account rules, statutory retention of the records, or an export shaped for an inspection, so I stop short of calling it inspection-ready. 6 7

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

Vacation, sick leave and time off in lieu are real entries, full-day or hourly, with a solid approval chain: supervisor or HR-Admin decides, department leads get notified, rejections carry a reason, and the calendar shows pending requests with role-based visibility — vacation requests also work from the phone. But we found no public information on automatic entitlement or carry-over, and no public information on shift rosters, duty plans or substitution workflows — the half of attendance that decides whether the plan survives the 5am sick call. 5 8 9

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

Customers, projects and tasks sit in a proper hierarchy with rates set per customer, per project and per task, budgets in hours and money, and a billable flag, and booked time turns into invoice items with the hourly rate frozen at billing — a rate change mid-project cannot rewrite what was already invoiced, and billed entries become read-only. We found no public information on cost centres or per-person rate cards, and the only named system interfaces are ones the vendor builds on request. 1 10 11

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

The month leaves as Excel, Word or PDF from any list, with script-based Excel exports for special cases and a general web API for exchanging data with other systems — but we found no public information on a named payroll system such as DATEV, on night, Sunday and holiday surcharges, or on a lock step before transmission. As it stands, someone in the office retypes it. 1 12 13

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 paper trail is decent: an Austrian company in Leonding is the contracting party, the data sits in Microsoft Azure in Amsterdam and Dublin with ISO 27001 certification, standard contractual clauses and a data processing agreement, and any processing outside the EEA is named with its legal basis. We found no public information on ownership or a maintained subprocessor register, and everything runs in the vendor's cloud — the only step toward our own infrastructure is a database in the customer's own Azure subscription on request. 1 2 3

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 headline is public and unusually honest: €10.85 per user per month, billed on a daily basis and cancelable any day, 30 days free without a credit card, and first-year offers for small teams (a one-time €29.90 for up to 10 users on Starter) and freelancers stated in plain figures. The gaps: single sign-on and the sandbox database are said to sit on the enterprise tier with no public price, and we found no public information on the VAT treatment of these figures. 1 3

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

Questions about timecockpit

Is timecockpit European?

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

Where does timecockpit store data?

Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.

Does timecockpit have a free plan?

Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.

What are the best alternatives to timecockpit?

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: timecockpit 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 timecockpit? 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.timecockpit.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Legal notice — found from the homepage www.timecockpit.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Security / trust page — found from the homepage www.timecockpit.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Capture in the real workplace — found from sitemap docs.timecockpit.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Capture in the real workplace — found from sitemap docs.timecockpit.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Working-time law & audit record — found from sitemap docs.timecockpit.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Working-time law & audit record — found from sitemap docs.timecockpit.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Absence & shift planning — found from sitemap docs.timecockpit.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Absence & shift planning — found from sitemap docs.timecockpit.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Project, cost-centre & billing — found from sitemap docs.timecockpit.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  11. 11 Project, cost-centre & billing — found from sitemap docs.timecockpit.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  12. 12 Payroll handoff — found from sitemap docs.timecockpit.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  13. 13 Payroll handoff — found from sitemap docs.timecockpit.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →