Condomana vs etg24

Condomana

Wirtschaftsplan and Jahresabrechnung are drafted from the year's bookings and apportioned 'by your keys', with unit advance payments computed on approval — that is exactly the anchor-5 picture, and the unit model tracks MEA. But nothing evidences the post-2021 BGH form with a separately shown Abrechnungsspitze, a Vermögensbericht, HeizkostenV apportionment, owner-change splits mid-year, dunning of Hausgeld arrears, or the Rücklage kept in trust with its own reporting; 'Sonderumlagen' is named and nothing more.

etg24

Wirtschaftspläne and Abrechnungen appear in the evidence only as documents delivered through the portal, alongside invoice review by advisory boards and fiscal-year tagging of files in document categories. We found no public information on a settlement generated from a ledger in the post-2021 form, on distribution keys, or on reserve funds booked separately — the feature that would make the accounting claims true is simply not shown.

Condomana

There is a real voting engine — each agenda item carries its basis (per head or by ownership share) and its majority, and closing the item computes the result — and the Beschluss-Sammlung is gapless, numbered, append-only with challenges and corrections annotated, which is solidly rubric level 5 and touches § 24(7) discipline. What I don't see: notice-period invitations, attendance and proxy recording, quorum or qualified majorities per resolution type, minutes generated from recorded votes, or any written-circulation procedure — the arithmetic that decides whether a Beschluss stands is only half evidenced.

etg24

This is the vendor's strongest ground: agenda items with resolution text, voting weight and majority requirement, automated counting by heads, co-ownership shares or units, proxies, hybrid meetings, and the circulation procedure with unanimity or simple majority per § 23 Abs. 3 WEG, minutes generated afterwards and a Beschlusssammlung in its own menu including court decisions. We found no public information on qualified majorities, on amendment and invalidation notes in the register, or on challenge-period flagging, so it sits below the top anchors despite the impressive arithmetic.

Condomana

Owners see their building's documents, defects and news with per-owner document permissions, defect reports go in with a photo and a status everyone can see, and letting owners can invite their tenants — good scoping and real defect self-service. But nothing shows per-owner statements, meeting papers or voting available in the portal, nor consumption or arrears per unit, and no access log evidencing the disclosure duty being discharged on demand.

etg24

Owners and tenants are scoped per contract — only contract parties reach personal documents such as statements, with meeting papers, current Umlaufbeschlüsse, defect forms accepting smartphone photos and status updates on processes, plus voting in the portal. We found no public information on arrears or consumption shown per unit, or on an access log covering the disclosure duty.

Condomana

Defect intake tracked open-to-done with photos, contractor assignment, and recurring maintenance that raises its own tickets at due date — rubric level 5 is fully met, and the forward-only timeline is an evidence trail a Verwalter can stand behind. Beyond that: no warranty/Gewährleistung periods tracked against a trade, no statutory inspections (lift, heating, fire, drinking water) scheduled with stored proof, and no quotes or invoices linked to the defect with cost allocated to the right account.

etg24

Defects arrive through structured forms with photos and run as cases with status updates, and an app function supports recurring property inspections. We found no public information on work orders assigned to contractors, statutory inspection schedules with proof of completion stored, or warranty periods tracked against the responsible trade.

Condomana

Full-text search with documents filed per building and unit, per-owner sharing permissions, and a 'vollständiger CSV-Export' plus a migration import — that is rubric level 5. But no version history, no evidence documents are linked to the resolutions and settlements that reference them, no structured handover package (ledger, register, documents, master data) a successor could actually load, and the only retention statement covers the vendor's own invoices, not the WEG archive.

etg24

A structured archive across object, unit and contract levels with predefined categories, bulk upload with automatic assignment, browser previews, and a named digital handover of a community's data to a successor administrator — the exit is at least an advertised feature. We found no public information on version history, full-text search, retention executed per statutory period, or the formats of the handover export.

Condomana

Hetzner in Gunzenhausen for hosting and mail, a German contracting entity (nelo digitalagentur GmbH & Co KG, HRA 725183 Ulm) as controller, tenant isolation and RBAC — the core chain is European and named, and third-country transfers are generally excluded. But the optional AI text-processing of Mängelmeldungen, Dokumente and portal requests runs through 'einen weiteren Auftragsverarbeiter' who is never named, and Buffer, Inc. (San Francisco) is a non-EU subprocessor whose legal basis I don't see stated; no certification published either.

etg24

The contracting entity is a German GmbH with Mannheim commercial registration and German addresses, but the privacy policy names Pipedrive (Pipedrive OÜ/Pipedrive Inc.) for lead management and warns that no EU-comparable protection level can be guaranteed for some tools. We found no public information on where the platform hosts community data or on a complete subprocessor list.

Condomana

€10 per unit per year plus VAT, parking and storage at a quarter of that, worked examples for 24 units (€240) and 120 units in five buildings (€1,200), all features in one tier with unlimited free verwalter and owners and no per-seat surprises — the annual invoice is derivable from the public page alone. Two unstated items keep it off the top: the minimum term is only implied by 'nichts automatisch', and the migration/rollout service has no number at all — the one figure a porting administrator will ask for.

etg24

Three versions are named, a three-month free Basis entry is public, voting is stated as included in Pro without extra cost, and the pages point to a separate price list — yet no figure for any tier appears in the evidence; the only number on the WEG page is a market cost of "zwischen 18 und 40 Euro je Wohneinheit zzgl. Mehrwertsteuer monatlich", explicitly not the vendor's own price. We found no public information on per-unit pricing, billing period, minimum term, setup or migration fees, or VAT treatment.