Condomana vs etg24

Condomana

The core cycle is there: budget each cost type and the plan computes every unit's Hausgeld, the Jahresabrechnung is drafted from the year's bookings, apportioned by my keys and frozen on approval, with Sonderumlagen covered — that is a clean rubric level 5. What keeps it from higher is silence on the Rücklage as a separate trust balance, no Abrechnungsspitze/Vermögensbericht, no HeizkostenV apportionment, no owner-change splits and no arrears dunning.

etg24

The owner portal carries Wirtschaftspläne and Abrechnungen as per-contract documents and accounting-category files can be tagged to fiscal years, but what I see is delivery of finished documents rather than production. I found no public information on generating the business plan or annual settlement from the ledger, on distribution keys, or on separate booking of the reserve.

Condomana

A real voting engine where each agenda item carries its basis (per head or by ownership share) and its majority and computes the result on closing, plus a gapless, continuously numbered, append-only Beschluss-Sammlung where challenges are annotated rather than overwritten — that reaches past a plain numbered register. But the evidence says nothing about invitations with the notice period, attendance or proxy recording, quorum for qualified majorities, or minutes generated from the recorded votes, so it sits between the 5 and 8 anchors.

etg24

Agenda items are entered with resolution text, voting weight and majority requirement, counting runs automatically by heads, units or co-ownership shares, and hybrid meetings run from digital invitation with opening proof and QR check-in through to minutes generated in the system, with the resolution register maintained continuously including court decisions. The circular-resolution procedure with a print function and postal result entry for offline owners is exactly the throughput I need. I found no public information on flagging contested resolutions within the challenge period or exporting the register as evidence.

Condomana

Owners see their building's documents, defects and news with per-owner document permissioning, requests run through the Eigentümerportal, defect reports arrive with a photo and a status visible to the reporter, and landlords can invite their tenants in — that is most of the anchor-8 separation without me touching email. Not evidenced: meeting papers or voting in the portal, per-unit consumption or arrears, and any access log that would discharge the disclosure duty on demand.

etg24

Owners and tenants get their own logins with personal documents such as settlements visible only to contract parties, meeting papers and circular resolutions with voting in browser or app, and structured request forms with smartphone photos. Status messages on ongoing matters appear in the app. I found no public information on per-unit consumption or arrears being shown, or on a defect report's status being visible to the person who filed it.

Condomana

Defects tracked from open to done with photos (including offline mobile capture), tradesman assignment, and recurring maintenance that raises its own ticket at due date — plus a forward-only timeline that holds up as a duty-of-care record. For a portfolio my size the missing pieces hurt: no statutory inspections (lift, heating, fire, drinking water) with proof of completion stored, no Gewährleistung tracking against the responsible trade, and no quotes/invoices linked to the defect with cost allocated to the right account.

etg24

Damage reports arrive through structured forms with photos taken on the phone, backed by case processing, task management and an app function for the regular site walk-throughs. I found no public information on work orders assigned to the responsible trade, statutory inspections for lift, heating or fire safety scheduled with proof of completion stored, or warranty period tracking — the backbone of a defensible operating record.

Condomana

Full-text search across everything filed per building and unit, retention grounded in § 257 HGB / § 147 AO at ten years for invoices, and a vollständiger CSV-Export with a migrationsimport on the way in — no lock-in language anywhere. But there is no version history, no evidence documents are linked to the resolutions and settlements that reference them, and no defined handover package a successor administrator can load, so it lands between the 5 and 8 anchors.

etg24

The archive is structured at object, unit and contract level with predefined categories, keyword-tagged search, bulk upload automatically assigned to the right contracts, and a digital handover that passes a managed object with all entered data to a successor administrator. I found no public information on version history, full-text search, retention executed per statutory period, or the export format a successor outside the platform would receive.

Condomana

German contracting entity (nelo digitalagentur GmbH & Co KG, Amtsgericht Ulm) on named German infrastructure (Hetzner, Gunzenhausen), no third-country transfers in principle, signed AVV per Art. 28, AI processing exclusively on EU servers — solid. Docked because the AI subprocessor is engaged but never named, Buffer Inc. (San Francisco) sits in the chain for social publishing, and no certification (ISO, C5) is published.

etg24

A German GmbH registered at the Mannheim court with German addresses is evidenced in the imprint, and the privacy policy names Pipedrive for lead management while warning that third-country tools offer no EU-comparable level of protection. I found no public information on where the platform and its communities' records are hosted, or on a complete subprocessor list.

Condomana

I can compute my whole invoice from public pages: €10 per unit per year excl. VAT, €2.50 for parking and storage, worked examples that check out (24 units → €240; 120 units in five buildings → €1,200), all features in one tier, unlimited admins and owners free, annual billing by bank transfer with no auto-renewal.

etg24

Three tiers are named, the Basis version is free for three months, online voting is stated as included in Pro at no additional cost, and the vendor says its prices sit on a dedicated page — but no figures for Pro or Enterprise appear in the pages captured, no per-unit maths, term, setup or migration cost. The only unit-based number published is a market benchmark of "zwischen 18 und 40 Euro je Wohneinheit zzgl. Mehrwertsteuer monatlich", presented as general market cost for WEG administration rather than the vendor's price.