Condomana vs etg24

Condomana

Wirtschaftsplan with per-unit advance computation and a Jahresabrechnung drafted from the year's bookings and apportioned by configurable keys meets the mid anchor, with Sonderumlagen on top. But the evidence is silent on the Rücklage as trust money — no separate reserve accounting, no Abrechnungsspitze, no Vermögensbericht, no HeizkostenV or dunning — and funds held in trust for people who never chose this vendor are exactly where I need that separation evidenced.

etg24

The captured pages present etg24 as a portal, meeting and document platform whose modules are case processing, task management, invoice checking, CRM and online voting — Wirtschaftspläne and Abrechnungen appear only as documents owners can retrieve. We found no public information on generating a Jahresabrechnung, on distribution keys, on separate handling of the reserve fund, or on Hausgeld arrears with dunning.

Condomana

A real voting engine with per-head and MEA-weighted bases, majorities computed per agenda item, and a gapless append-only Beschlusssammlung where challenges and corrections are annotated rather than overwritten covers the heart of the anchor-8 register duty. What is missing is everything around the meeting itself: no evidence of notice-period invitations, proxy and quorum handling, or minutes generated from the recorded votes.

etg24

Agenda items carry title, resolution text, Stimmgewichtung and Mehrheitserfordernis; weighting by Kopfprinzip, Miteigentumsanteilen or Einheiten is automatic; proxies, QR-code check-in and hybrid voting via app are supported; and minutes plus a Beschlusssammlung including court decisions are generated in the system, with the Umlaufverfahren covering offline owners by print and postal entry. We found no public information on flagging contested resolutions within the challenge period or on exporting the register as evidence.

Condomana

Per-owner document sharing, portal defect reports with a status the reporter can see, and tenant access granted only through the owning owner give a defensible separation of visibility — better than most. But no evidence of per-unit statements or arrears display, owner-facing voting or meeting papers in the portal, and above all no access log, which is the difference between granting disclosure and proving it.

etg24

Owners and tenants reach the portal through their contract, with personal documents such as Abrechnungen visible only to the persons in that contract and read-only rights for invited users; meeting papers and voting run in portal and app, and damage reports go through structured forms with smartphone photos. We found no public information on the reporter seeing the status of their own defect case, on arrears or consumption shown live per unit, or on an access log over viewed records.

Condomana

Defect tracking open-to-done with photos and mobile offline capture, contractor assignment, recurring maintenance that raises its own tickets, and a forward-only timeline that makes the duty-of-care record tamper-evident — that last point I value, since it answers what the administrator knew and when. But warranty periods and statutory inspections (lift, fire, drinking water) with stored proof are entirely absent from the evidence, which caps it below the 8 anchor.

etg24

Structured service-request forms with photo attachments, case and task modules, and an app function for Liegenschaftsbegehungen give the defect side a real shape. We found no public information on contractor assignment with work orders inside the system, on a recurring maintenance calendar with reminders, or on tracking warranty periods and statutory inspections.

Condomana

Full-text search over a per-building, per-unit archive, retention periods actually stated (§ 257 HGB / § 147 AO, ten years for invoices; server logs deleted after three months), and a complete CSV export with migration import get it to the mid anchor. There is no evidence of version history, of an access log over the archive, or that the handover export covers the document archive and register rather than tabular data — and retention periods stated are not retention that executes.

etg24

The archive is structured across object, unit and contract levels with predefined categories, automatic assignment on bulk upload and fiscal-year tagging, and a digital handover of a managed object with all its data to a successor administrator is offered as a feature. Retention appears only as a general privacy statement that statutory retention duties remain unaffected; we found no public information on retention executing per period, version history, an access log over the archive, or the formats of a handover export.

Condomana

German contracting entity (nelo digitalagentur GmbH & Co KG, Amtsgericht Ulm) on named German infrastructure (Hetzner, Gunzenhausen), no third-country transfers except the named Buffer Inc. for social publishing, and — the answer I demand — AI text processing (defect reports, documents, portal inquiries) runs exclusively on EU servers under an Art. 28 AVV with no model training. It falls short of the top anchor because the AI Auftragsverarbeiter is engaged but never named, and ownership and subprocessor exposure remain unconfirmed by the pipeline.

etg24

The contracting entity is the German etg24 GmbH registered at AG Mannheim, and the privacy policy names Pipedrive for lead management while warning that tools from third countries may transfer personal data without an EU-comparable level of protection. We found no public information on where the cloud platform or the "KI denkt mit" features — including invoice review — process documents, on the hosting location, or on a complete subprocessor list.

Condomana

€10 per unit per year plus VAT, annual billing, parking spaces at 2,50 €, workable examples (24 units = 240 €, 120 units in five buildings = 1.200 €), everything in one tier with no locked stages, AI included, unlimited users, no card and no auto-renewal — an administrator can compute the invoice.

etg24

The only price we found is public and free: a three-month Basis version, with online voting and the Umlaufbeschluss tool stated to be included in Pro without additional costs, and a claim on the vendor's pages that prices are published. We found no public information on any figure for Pro or Enterprise — per-unit or per-community price, billing period, minimum term, setup or migration costs — so the annual cost is not derivable from the captured pages.