Global Skills Masters (GSM) review

GSM markets Serbian EOR for overseas companies and individual professionals. Its Teams model says staff are employed through its local company. A separate Standalone service establishes and manages a dedicated entity, generally for teams of 50 or more; this must not be counted as the same shared-employer service. No full legal name, registration number or partner-employer map was established.

Onboarding

Individual onboarding is described as consultation, compatibility check, documentation, employment registration, client invoicing and ongoing administration. The inspected material does not establish immigration sponsorship, role/nationality restrictions, a required-document checklist or a guaranteed start-date SLA.

Published company plans are EUR 200 per employee monthly for fewer than 10 staff, EUR 150 for 10–50, and custom pricing for Advanced. Starter includes legal employment, statutory administration and monthly reporting; Growth adds private health and eligible annual tax return preparation; Advanced adds tailored benefits and dedicated management. Salary, statutory employment costs and optional services require a total quote; headline service fees are not an all-in employment budget.

FX funding

Company marketing promises no markup on additional expenses or foreign exchange, but no rate benchmark, rate-lock time, bank fees, salary prefunding cutoff, deposit amount/custody or refund schedule was obtained. The individual page also claims no additional levies; no complete contractual exception schedule was inspected.

GSM claims salary-based pension contributions, tax filings, compliant bonus payments and client invoicing with account tracking. No actual pay calendar, input/funding cutoff, correction process, compensation for errors or independent accuracy record was found.

GSM offers a local Serbian service team and email contact, says it will respond quickly after a compatibility check and lists a dedicated general manager in Advanced. Coverage hours, emergency payroll escalation, named case ownership and binding resolution times are not published in the material inspected.

Individuals are promised a personalised dashboard and reports; company plans promise monthly client reports, with financial/KPI reporting in Advanced. The public salary calculator was usable, but it is not a payroll-platform trial. No authenticated employer/worker workflow, partner portal, API/integrations, data export or uptime commitment was inspected.

Published scope includes statutory administration, optional additional benefits, annual tax-filing support and help with personal banking. Growth specifies private health; Advanced allows tailored benefits. Leave approvals, reimbursement policies, benefit schedules and worker-facing service guarantees remain unknown.

GSM says it provides compliant local employment and protection from individual business liability; the client retains a team relationship and Standalone adds oversight of a dedicated entity. No EOR MSA, indemnity limits, insurance, management-authority schedule or employee-to-client IP transfer chain was obtained. Its independence-test explainer is provider guidance, not independently verified legal assurance.

No minimum term/headcount commitment, cancellation notice, severance allocation, employment transfer process, data handover or deposit-release terms were found in the inspected company/individual material or terms searches.

No detailed payroll DPA, named subprocessors, international-transfer mechanism, role-based access policy, verified security certification or breach-notification SLA surfaced in the inspected public material and privacy/terms search. A promised dashboard alone does not establish those controls.

GSM describes a transition from staffing/recruitment to EOR after Q2 2025 under new management. Its partner page lists generic sectors without named employing partners. No official exact-entity extract, current audited accounts, continuity plan or independent EOR customer sample was obtained. Zero collected reviews is an evidence gap, not a delivery-quality judgement.