Condomana vs etg24

Condomana

The Wirtschaftsplan computes each unit's Hausgeld and the Jahresabrechnung is drafted from the year's bookings with my keys, frozen on approval — that is the anchor-5 promise, and the AI reads invoices but never books on its own. But the evidence is silent on the Rücklage as a separate trust balance, on Abrechnungsspitze and Vermögensbericht, on HeizkostenV apportionment and on Hausgeld arrears with dunning, so I cannot certify more to the assembly.

etg24

The captured pages show Wirtschaftsplan and settlement documents only as files delivered to owners, and the module list names case processing, task management, invoice checking and CRM. I found no public information on settlement generation, distribution keys or separate reserve-fund accounting, nor on heating-cost apportionment, mid-year owner changes or arrears dunning. What is evidenced is filing accounting documents by fiscal year — a filing cabinet, not the settlement an accountant could sign.

Condomana

Every agenda item carries its basis — per head or by ownership share — and closing it computes the result, and the Beschluss-Sammlung is gapless, continuously numbered and append-only with corrections annotated rather than overwritten: that is the register § 24 (7) wants. What is missing is the meeting around it — invitation logistics and notice periods, proxies, and minutes generated from the recorded votes are nowhere evidenced.

etg24

Agenda items are entered with resolution text, voting weight and majority requirement, votes are counted automatically with weighting by heads, co-ownership shares or units, proxies run through the portal, minutes are generated from the recorded votes, and the resolution register is kept continuously in its own menu including court decisions. Hybrid meetings and the written circulation procedure each carry their own legal detail — unanimity versus simple majority, postal participants printed with their results re-entered. I found no public information on flagging contested resolutions within the challenge period or exporting the register as evidence.

Condomana

Owners are scoped properly: each document shared with exactly the entitled owners, defect reports with photo and a status everyone can see, and letting owners can bring their tenants in. But I find no evidence that owners see their own statements or meeting papers and voting in the portal, nor arrears per unit — so the Einsichtsrecht still runs through the administrator's inbox.

etg24

Owners and tenants get their own access, see only documents filed on their contract, vote in the portal or app, and submit damage reports with smartphone photos through structured forms that reach the administrator. Status updates on ongoing matters are published in the portal, though as general status messages rather than a per-report trail. I found no public information on per-unit consumption or arrears being shown to the owner.

Condomana

A defect runs from open to done with photos and a forward-only timeline I could defend in a dispute, a Handwerker is assigned in the system, and recurring maintenance raises its own ticket at due date. Silence, though, on the statutory inspections — lift, heating, fire safety, drinking water — on Gewährleistung periods per trade, and on linking quotes and invoices to the defect.

etg24

Damage reports arrive through structured forms with photos, case processing and task management modules exist, an app function supports regular property inspections, and a property appointments overview is described. I found no public information on recurring maintenance obligations with reminders, contractor work orders, statutory inspection proof or warranty tracking, so the building-side record stays thin.

Condomana

Full-text search across an archive filed per building and unit, ten-year invoice retention cited to § 257 HGB / § 147 AO, and a complete CSV export — a documented exit for the data at least. Version history, documents linked to the resolutions and settlements that cite them, and a handover package a successor administrator could actually load — document archive included, not just CSV — are not in the evidence.

etg24

The archive is genuinely structured — object, unit and contract levels, predefined categories, subfolders, bulk upload with automatic assignment, fiscal-year filing and browser preview — and handing a managed object with all its data to a successor administrator is described as a feature of the product. I found no public information on version history, full-text search beyond keyword-tagged categories, retention periods for the archive, or the format of the handover export. Handover as a named capability earns credit; an export a successor could actually load is not evidenced.

Condomana

The imprint and privacy policy name a German entity (Amtsgericht Ulm, HRA 725183), German hosting at Hetzner in Gunzenhausen, EU-only servers and no third-country transfers except the named Buffer Inc. for social-media publishing — the quoted records are solid even though the pipeline's attributes came back unknown. But the optional AI features rest on a further processor that is asserted EU yet never named, and no certification is published, so completeness is not proven.

etg24

The contracting entity is a German GmbH with a Mannheim commercial register entry, German addresses and a published data protection officer contact. But I found no public information on where the platform is hosted, the only subprocessor I found named is Pipedrive for CRM, and the privacy policy itself warns that tools from unsafe third countries may transfer data with no EU-comparable protection. A German entity is the floor; the community's records deserve a named infrastructure and a complete processor list before I would sign.

Condomana

Ten euros per unit per year plus VAT, Stellplätze at a quarter of that, worked examples for 24 and 120 units, all features included with no locked tiers and unlimited free users, no card and no auto-renewal — I can compute a community's annual invoice myself from the public page. Only the migration and rollout services for large portfolios lack a number, and that is genuinely custom work.

etg24

The captured pages name three tiers, offer a three-month free Basis version, and state that online voting costs nothing extra in Pro and Enterprise; a price page is referenced. But no figure for Pro or Enterprise appears — no per-unit maths, no minimum term, no setup or migration cost, no VAT treatment — and the only euro amounts captured are market costs for WEG administration generally, expressly not etg24's own prices. An administrator cannot compute the annual cost for a given portfolio from these pages.