casavi vs facilioo

casavi

The captured pages present casavi as a communication and process platform for property management; we found no public information on a Wirtschaftsplan, a Jahresabrechnung, distribution keys, or how a Rücklage is booked. The feature list names case management, documents, communication, apps, contractor steering and AI, with nothing on the statutory financial cycle.

facilioo

The captured pages position facilioo as CRM software for property professionals — tasks, claims, contractor, meter and elevator management — and we found no public information on a Wirtschaftsplan, a Jahresabrechnung, distribution keys, or any separate handling of the reserve fund. Consumption data is actively monitored, but nothing published shows settlement arithmetic or a reserve held in trust for the community.

casavi

We found no public information on convening an owners' meeting, agenda structure, proxy or majority arithmetic, or a maintained resolution register. The captured feature descriptions cover communication and process coordination generally, and say nothing about the meeting itself or the Beschluss-Sammlung.

facilioo

Invitations, agendas, real-time voting, exact capture of proxies and voting groups, and secured minutes run in one system across in-person, hybrid and online meetings, which is genuine meeting conduct. We found no public information on majority computation per resolution type or a resolution register maintained with amendment and invalidation notes, so the statutory backbone is not evidenced.

casavi

A portal called mycasavi.com exists — the privacy policy expressly excludes it from its own scope — and apps are a listed feature, but we found no public information on what owners or tenants can see there, whether views are scoped per person, or whether a defect form exists. For records holding bank details and arrears of people who never chose this vendor, the unanswered question of strictly separated owner and tenant visibility decides the score.

facilioo

A customer app delivers documents, protocols, consumption data and a defect form with photo upload, with a real-time status overview for transparent communication. We found no public information on strictly separate scoping of owner and tenant views, an access log over what an owner has seen, or per-unit arrears — the visibility separation this buyer requires is not evidenced on the pages.

casavi

Case management and contractor steering are named core features, so contractors are coordinated inside the system rather than outside it. We found no public information on defect records with photos, work orders, a recurring maintenance calendar, or tracking of statutory inspections and warranty periods.

facilioo

Defects are documented with photos and structured handling, the entire damage history from first report to settlement stays viewable, contractor control and meter, maintenance and elevator management sit in the core modules, and insurance approvals sync back from the damage interface. Warranty and Gewährleistung tracking, proof of statutory inspections, and posting of costs to the correct account are not evidenced in the captured material.

casavi

Document organization is a named feature area, and we found no public information on versioning, full-text search, an access log over the archive, or a defined handover export of a community's records. The retention periods cited in the privacy policy state the vendor's own statutory duties under HGB and AO, which is not evidence of retention executing in the product.

facilioo

Digital document management is offered, the files-archive interface is restricted to administrator and property-management roles, a DocuWare export of master data exists, and retention periods of six and ten years are stated in the privacy notice. We found no public information on versioning, full-text search, an access log over the archive, or a defined handover export of a community's records — the exit path for a change of administrator is not evidenced, and retention is stated rather than shown executing.

casavi

The vendor is a German entity registered in Munich, hosting on Amazon Web Services servers inside the EU, and the privacy policy names its processors — including non-EU ones such as MailChimp, Intercom and CloudAlly in Canada — covered by EU standard contractual clauses. That published list covers website, CRM, newsletter and support tooling, and we found no public information on where casavi AI sends the documents it reads; the independently collected sovereignty attributes also leave data residency and subprocessor exposure unconfirmed.

facilioo

The contracting entity is a Berlin GmbH with full register details and the platform is reached on German-domain endpoints, but we found no public information on hosting location, on where the AI telephone assistant processes callers and their concerns, or on a subprocessor list for the platform itself. The only published processors appear in a privacy notice dated 25 May 2018 that names US services and cites Privacy Shield as a safeguard, which is information I cannot treat as a current chain of custody.

casavi

The captured pricing page describes individually assembled packages agreed through sales consultation, an individual offer from 4,000 managed units upward, and all prices stated exclusive of VAT — but no figure an administrator could put into arithmetic. The real annual cost for a given portfolio is therefore not derivable from public pages alone.

facilioo

No per-unit or per-community price appears anywhere in the captured material; the only pricing-adjacent facts are a free trial, a free demo and the statement that the damage interface stands at no cost to property managers. An administrator cannot compute a real annual cost from these public pages.