Time Tracking & Attendance
timr
EU-Made 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 troii Software GmbH · www.timr.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
timr, from Austrian vendor troii Software GmbH, captures time via web, Android/iOS apps and an Android terminal, and the bench is firm on that core: capture in the real workplace scores a uniform 4, judges crediting three capture paths plus automatic device sync. Project, cost-centre & billing follows at 3-4 — projects roll into a dashboard, but no billable flag, rates or invoice-ready export is evidenced. Weaknesses are steep. Working-time law & audit record scores 0-2: the evidence never mentions break rules, the daily maximum or retention of the time record itself. Payroll handoff scores 0-2 with no named payroll system — only an API and an integrations page. Absence & shift planning holds at 2, a calendar overview without approval workflows or any roster. The genuine split is sovereignty, 5-8. Judges agree on the published subprocessor list with signed DPAs and verified TOMs, Hetzner (Germany) hosting, and Zendesk (USA) on EU SCCs; they part on Google Analytics, Wingify and Crashlytics, which run without stated transfer safeguards — weighted heavily by the works-council advocate (5), discounted by the skeptic and payroll officer (8). Public pricing stops at a 14-day trial, all employees, full features, no credit card.
Speaks for it
- Time capture across web, Android/iOS apps and an Android terminal, with automatic device sync
- Project data aggregates into a dashboard, plus a finance-office-conformant GPS driving log
- A published subprocessor list with signed DPAs and verified TOMs, the US transfer (Zendesk) covered by EU SCCs
- Absence and vacation tracking lives inside the product with a calendar overview
Held against it
- No evidenced break rules, daily-maximum or rest checks, or retention of the working-time record itself (working-time law & audit record 0-2)
- No named payroll system or documented export format — only an API and an integrations page
- No approval workflow, automatic entitlement, carry-over, sickness handling or shift roster evidenced (absence & shift planning 2)
- Offline capture, correction-with-approval and change audit trails unaddressed in the evidence
- No per-user price, tier or terminal cost published — only the trial
Best for
- You need multi-device time capture — web, phone apps and a shared terminal — for mixed desk and deskless teams
- You want internal project roll-up reporting and a GPS driving log rather than client-facing billing
- You value EU-anchored paperwork — an Austrian entity, a published DPA-signed subprocessor list, German hosting named — and accept EU SCCs for the US support processor
Avoid if
- You must evidence German working-time-law compliance — break, daily-maximum or rest checks, or retention of the time record itself
- You need a payroll handoff to a named system with a defined export format and surcharge handling
- Your team runs shift rosters or needs absence approval workflows and automatic entitlement
- You require every processor transfer to be contractually safeguarded — analytics tools run without stated mechanisms, the works-council advocate's stated ground for scoring sovereignty 5
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
Three real capture paths are confirmed — web, Android/iOS apps and an Android-Terminal for the shop floor — which is the shape my mixed workforce needs. But offline capture, a correction-with-approval workflow and GPS check-in for working time (GPS is only claimed for the Fahrtenbuch) are nowhere evidenced, so my field crews on a dead network remain a question mark. 1
The Payroll Officer
Web, iOS/Android apps and an Android terminal cover desk and site crews better than a browser timer alone, but the evidence is silent on offline capture, geofenced check-in limits, and any correction workflow with approval and an audit trail — the sync line only says devices update each other. 1
The Works Council Advocate
Web, iOS/Android apps and an Android terminal give desk and deskless staff a way to clock in, with automatic sync across devices. But the evidence is silent on offline capture, on a correction workflow with approval, and on any audit trail of who changed whose hours — and the only GPS on record is for the driving log, with no stated limits on what is stored, which is exactly what I would have to co-determine. 1
The Agency Owner
Web, iOS/Android apps and an Android terminal give desk, phone and shared-terminal clock-in, and GPS appears — but only in the Fahrtenbuch, not for geofenced check-in. No offline capture, no correction-and-approval workflow, and no audit trail of changes is evidenced, so it sits just under the 5 anchor. 1
The Field Supervisor
Web, Android/iOS apps and an Android terminal app give my crews three ways to punch in, which is more than most. But the evidence only claims 'automatische Datensynchronisierung' — nobody says what happens when there's no network to sync over, and in a basement at 6am offline is the whole game; no correction workflow with approval is evidenced either, so every fix is an admin ticket. 1
The Skeptic
Three capture paths are confirmed — web, Android/iOS apps and an Android-terminal app — plus automatic device sync, which clears the 'shared terminal' bar. But the evidence never says what happens when the network is gone, who approves a correction, or whether GPS is anything more than address detection for the Fahrtenbuch. 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 evidence says nothing about break rules, the 8/10-hour maximum, the 11-hour rest period or a two-year retention of the time record itself; the retention periods I do see cover customer master data under Austrian tax law, not employee hours. Since the BAG ruling this is the core of my purchase, and here the product is unevidenced. 2
The Payroll Officer
No break rules, no 8/10-hour or 11-hour rest checks, no statement of how long working-time records are kept; the retention periods in the privacy policy govern customer, payment and server-log data, not the record an ArbSchG inspection would demand. This is hours summed and nothing more. 2 1
The Works Council Advocate
Nothing here covers breaks, the 8/10-hour daily maximum, the 11-hour rest period, tamper-evidence or a change history; the retention figures that do exist concern customer master data under commercial and tax law (§ 132 BAO, 7 and 10 years), not the employee's working-time record. A record that cannot be handed to an inspector — or read by the works council — does not satisfy the recording duty. 2
The Agency Owner
Nothing on break rules, the 8/10-hour daily maximum or the 11-hour rest period — the German recording duty is not addressed at all. The only retention statements cover tax-law customer data (7 years, § 132 BAO), a 2-year GDPR processing restriction and 6-month server logs, which is not a working-time record kept for inspection. 2
The Field Supervisor
Not one word on break rules, the 8/10-hour ceiling, the 11-hour rest or an inspection export — the evidence is silent on anything ArbZG-shaped. The only retention statements are GDPR hygiene on personal data (7 years under § 132 BAO, processing restricted after 2 years), which says nothing about the working-time record surviving an audit. 2
The Skeptic
Nothing here names a break rule, a daily maximum, a rest-period check, or retention of the working-time record itself; the only retention figures concern customer master data under § 132 BAO, not time records. A vendor selling 'Zeiterfassung' into Germany that never mentions ArbZG or the BAG duty on its homepage gets the anchor-0 score until one feature says otherwise. 1 2
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
All that's confirmed is an absence and vacation overview with a calendar view — no approval workflow, no automatic entitlement or carry-over, and above all no shift or duty roster anywhere in the evidence. For 200 people with field crews, that's half of attendance missing. 1
The Payroll Officer
An absence and vacation calendar overview exists, but nothing on approval workflow, automatic entitlement, carry-over, sickness recording or any shift roster — I see no mechanism that would keep a duty plan from violating rest rules. 1
The Works Council Advocate
An absence calendar and vacation overview exist, but the evidence shows no automatic entitlement, no carry-over, no sickness handling and no roster of any kind. Planning is the half of attendance that makes the time data mean anything, and the vendor's own pages are silent on it. 1
The Agency Owner
Leave management with a calendar overview for vacations and absences exists, which beats a spreadsheet. But no approval workflow, no automatic entitlement or carry-over, no sickness recording and no rostering whatsoever is evidenced. 1
The Field Supervisor
Absences and vacations live in timr with a calendar overview, so at least it's not a spreadsheet. But there's no evidence of a request-approval flow, automatic entitlement, carry-over, sickness handling or any shift roster — nothing that tells me the plan holds up when someone calls in sick on Friday. 1
The Skeptic
'Abwesenheiten und Urlaube' with a calendar overview is confirmed, so vacation does at least live inside the product rather than a spreadsheet. But no approval workflow, no automatic entitlement, no carry-over, no sickness handling and no hint of a roster appear anywhere in the evidence. 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
Projects exist and roll up into a dashboard, which is more than a free-text note, but there is no evidenced billable flag, no rates, no budget tracking and no invoice-ready or accounting handoff anywhere in the evidence. 1
The Payroll Officer
Projects are recorded and aggregated into a dashboard, which is a single project dimension with roll-up reporting; no billable flag, no rate cards, no cost centre, no budget tracking and no invoice-ready output. 1
The Works Council Advocate
Project time is recorded and pulled together in a dashboard, and the vendor positions itself around time, project and mileage recording. But there is no evidence of tasks, cost centres, a billable flag, rates or an invoice-ready export — one project dimension without the allocation an agency actually bills on. 1
The Agency Owner
Projects exist and their data aggregates into a dashboard, plus a tax-office-conformant GPS mileage log — the raw allocation dimension is there. But no billable flag, no rates, no budget tracking and no invoice-ready export appear anywhere, so my forty people's hours stop at the dashboard. 1 1
The Field Supervisor
Projects are first-class and a dashboard rolls up data from all of them, and the GPS-driven Fahrtenbuch is a genuine plus for my drivers. But no billable flag, no rates, no budget tracking and no invoice-ready export are evidenced — the time stops at the internal report. 1
The Skeptic
Projects exist and their data is aggregated in a dashboard, which is more than a free-text note. But no task level, no billable flag, no rate card and no invoice or client-report export is evidenced — recorded time stops at the dashboard. 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
No payroll path at all: no DATEV or other named system, no export format, no surcharge handling — an 'Integrationen' page and an API get a mention, but nothing payroll-shaped. The month would leave as something my payroll clerk retypes. 1
The Payroll Officer
No named payroll system, no documented export format, and not a syllable on night, Sunday and holiday surcharges, time accounts or a lock step before transmission — all the evidence offers is an API and an integrations page, which is a connector for someone else to build, not a payroll handoff. 1
The Works Council Advocate
An API and an integrations page are mentioned by name and nothing more; no payroll system is named, no export format is documented, and surcharge, time-account or lock handling is entirely absent. On this sheet, the closed month leaves as something a payroll clerk retypes. 1
The Agency Owner
An API and an integrations page exist, but not a single named payroll system, no DATEV, no defined format, no surcharge handling and no lock step. The month leaves through a generic interface someone still maps by hand. 1
The Field Supervisor
No named payroll system, no defined format, no surcharge handling — the evidence offers an API and an integrations page and not one word about getting the closed month into DATEV or the tax adviser. By my lights that month leaves as something somebody retypes. 1
The Skeptic
An API and an 'Integrationen' page exist, but not one payroll system is named, no export format is documented, and surcharge handling is entirely unmentioned. An unnamed integration page is not a payroll path; the month's journey to Lohn is unevidenced. 1
European sovereignty
panel opinion
panel disagrees
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
Better than most paperwork: Austrian entity, hosting with Hetzner in Germany named as provider, and a published subprocessor list with countries and purposes, with the US transfer (Zendesk) carried on EU SCCs. Held below 8 because VWO/Wingify (India) appears with no stated transfer safeguard and ownership/data residency are unconfirmed. 2
The Payroll Officer
The service itself is hosted at Hetzner in Germany, the contracting entity is the Austrian troii Software GmbH, and the privacy policy publishes a full subprocessor list with signed DPAs and verified TOMs, naming the one US processor (Zendesk) with EU SCCs. Only the absence of an on-prem/private-cloud option and the unverified ownership keep this below the top anchor. 2
The Works Council Advocate
The service is hosted at Hetzner in Germany, the contracting entity is Austrian with a named data-protection officer, and a subprocessor list is published with signed DPAs and verified TOMs — better than most. But Zendesk in the USA rests on SCCs alone, and Google Analytics, Crashlytics and VWO/Wingify process with no stated transfer safeguard, so the chain is EU-standard with unexplained holes rather than EU end to end. 2
The Agency Owner
The Austrian entity, Hetzner hosting the service in Germany, a published subprocessor list with countries and purposes, and the one US transfer (Zendesk) covered by EU SCCs approach the 8 anchor. But residency is never committed as a standard, ownership is unknown, and Google Analytics runs on the service itself alongside Wingify and Crashlytics without stated safeguards. 2
The Field Supervisor
This one holds up: the privacy policy names troii GmbH in Austria as entity, Hetzner in Germany hosting the service itself, a full processor list with signed Auftragsverarbeitungsverträge and verified TOMs, and the one US processor (Zendesk) carries EU SCCs. It falls short of the top because Google Analytics runs on Google LLC with only IP-anonymisation as cover, Wingify and Crashlytics have no stated transfer mechanism, ownership is unknown and there's no certification or on-prem option. 2
The Skeptic
The privacy policy names troii Software GmbH (AT) as entity, Hetzner Online GmbH (Germany) hosting 'Website und Dienst', and six subprocessors with purposes, the single non-EU one (Zendesk, USA) carried on EU SCCs — DPAs signed and TOMs verified, which is genuine anchor-8 material. Held back from 10: no published data-centre certification, no on-premises or private-cloud option, and the Austrian entity is evidenced as a controller seat rather than an explicit place of incorporation. 2
Pricing transparency
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
No public price at all — the only pricing fact is a clearly stated 14-day trial with all employees and no credit card. I cannot compute an annual invoice for 200 heads, terminals included, from anything on this sheet. 1
The Payroll Officer
The only public number is a 14-day free trial with all features and no credit card; there is no per-user price, no tier, no terminal hardware price and no billing period, so the real annual invoice for any headcount cannot be computed from these pages. 1
The Works Council Advocate
The only public pricing fact is the trial: 14 days, all employees, full features, no credit card. No per-user price, no tier, no terminal or module pricing — a buyer cannot compute one euro of the annual invoice from these pages. 1
The Agency Owner
The only public commercial terms are a 14-day all-features trial with all employees and no credit card — no per-user price, no tier, no terminal or module cost, no billing period. I cannot compute any annual invoice from this sheet. 1
The Field Supervisor
Only the trial is priced in public: 14 days, all employees, full features, no credit card. Not a single euro per user per month anywhere in the evidence, and the Android terminal hardware is entirely unpriced — I cannot compute an annual invoice from these pages. 1
The Skeptic
The only pricing artefact in public view is the trial — 14 days, all employees, no credit card — which is commendably complete but costs nothing. Per-user rates, tiers, billing period, minimums and what the Android terminal hardware costs are all absent; no buyer can compute an annual invoice from these pages. 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 ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | EU only | 3/3 pts | 3 Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 30 Aug 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Subprocessors, Legal entity. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- 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.
- 104 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
- 21 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
- 20 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
- 19 pricing 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
- 6 support 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
- 3 integrations 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 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are 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 (15)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.timr.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 +4 earlier captures: 15 Sep 2026, 11 Sep 2026, 30 Aug 2026, 30 Aug 2026 Details →
- 2 Privacy policy www.timr.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Security / trust page www.timr.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Capture in the real workplace — found from sitemap www.timr.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Capture in the real workplace — found from sitemap www.timr.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Working-time law & audit record — found from sitemap www.timr.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Working-time law & audit record — found from sitemap www.timr.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Absence & shift planning — found from sitemap www.timr.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Absence & shift planning — found from sitemap www.timr.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Project, cost-centre & billing — found from sitemap www.timr.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Project, cost-centre & billing — found from sitemap www.timr.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Payroll handoff — found from sitemap www.timr.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Payroll handoff — found from sitemap www.timr.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 Pricing www.timr.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 15 Imprint www.timr.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →