DataGuard vs OneTrust

DataGuard

The GDPR page names the right modules — Daten-Mapping & VVT, DSFA & Risikobewertungen, Drittanbieter-Risikomanagement, Maßnahmen — but a feature list is not a data model: nothing shows activities linked to processors, TOMs and legal bases, and the 75%-automation claims are ISO-flavored marketing. Modules exist; connection is unevidenced.

OneTrust

A live RoPA built from assessments, system integrations and questionnaire responses into one central processing inventory, with automated DPIA/PIA workflows and vendor records holding DPAs, transfer mechanisms and security obligations, reads as a genuinely connected data model rather than a register in isolation. Two things hold it back: we found no public information on reusable group templates or multi-client mandates, and the one legal artifact I can inspect — the GDPR Transfer Impact Assessment template — reaches the application only through a template-import workaround rather than native support.

DataGuard

Betroffenenanfragen and Sicherheitsvorfälle/Datenpannen exist as named modules, which clears a structured log — but no statutory clock, no intake channel, no authority-notification output, and deletion concepts are entirely absent from the evidence.

OneTrust

The request half is strongly evidenced: intake through a secure portal and a documented API, automated identity verification, automated discovery, redaction and deletion with legal-hold checks, timestamped logging of every action, and the one-month clock with two-month extension stated. The incident half offers only named incident records and a bullet to streamline incident management — we found no public information on a 72-hour breach clock, severity assessment or authority-report output.

DataGuard

The supported list is DSGVO, ISO 27001, TISAX, NIS2, EU AI Act — the privacy half of that is GDPR alone: no BDSG, no nDSG, no UK GDPR, no ePrivacy, and '50 Länder' ships with zero per-country variants. GDPR plus AI Act duties is a content-pack story at best, with no cross-mapping evidence.

OneTrust

GDPR is deep — readiness aligned to the seven principles, automated DPIA workflows, an official Europrivacy partnership — CCPA is named alongside it, and a separate AI governance line exists; that is the major regimes for the market delivered as content of varying depth. We found no public information on UK GDPR, Swiss nDSG or ePrivacy coverage, per-country variants, a documented update cadence, or one record mapping across regimes.

DataGuard

'Reporting & Visualisierungen' and the 100% first-attempt audit claims describe outcomes, not trail: no revision-safe history, no evidence packs on demand, no auditor roles, and no answer to 'show me the state on date X' anywhere in the evidence. Policy 'Bestätigungen & Nachverfolgung' is the only trail-adjacent feature, and it lives in a template library.

OneTrust

Timestamped consent receipts, per-individual consent history across channels, captured decisions and approvals, a bulk-export recipe covering data subjects and consent and cookie receipts, and an API that exports the deleted-assessment audit log — this is more than PDFs assembled ad hoc. But we found no public information on revision-safe change history across the registers, audit-scoped evidence packs, auditor access roles, or any answer to showing the state on a given date.

DataGuard

'Integrationen & APIs' ships in Base with SSO and granular roles, and AI automation is claimed at up to 40% of tasks — but not a single named connector, no directory import, no documented REST objects, no webhooks or SCIM. Claimed capability with nothing named.

OneTrust

The developer portal documents API families across essentially every module — assessment automation, data mapping, DSR, incident management, inventory, task management, SCIM user provisioning — alongside more than 500 pre-built plug-ins, native mobile SDKs with bridging to React Native, Flutter and Cordova/Ionic, and named connectors such as MuleSoft and Apigee feeding DSR servicing. Webhooks and AI assistance with human review are the prongs we found no public information on, which is what keeps it off the top bench.

DataGuard

The imprint nails a German GmbH — HRB 235942 München, DE VAT — and beyond that the evidence is silent: no hosting location, no published DPA, no subprocessor list for the platform that would hold my RoPA. An EU entity with a fully undocumented chain beats rubric level 0 but is nowhere near rubric level 3's published DPA, and the US VC exposure flagged in provenance is unverified.

OneTrust

The compliance record of the company would sit with a US entity — OneTrust LLC, headquartered in Atlanta, under FTC jurisdiction for Data Privacy Framework enforcement, relying on SCCs and the UK IDTA for transfers — though a DPA, SCCs, a subprocessor list and a Schrems II response paper are public. We found no public information on hosting residency, an EU region or named data centers, and subprocessor exposure to non-European jurisdictional reach is not confirmed on the vendor's own captured pages.

DataGuard

The pricing page publishes the plan architecture — Base/Pro contents, Whistleblowing as an add-on, external DSB/ISB visibly unbundled as services — and not one number: no prices, no billing period, no user or entity boundaries. '50% günstiger als externe Berater' is a discount on an unpublished base, so the real invoice stays a sales conversation.

OneTrust

We found no public pricing on any captured page — no edition figures, module prices, user or entity boundaries, or billing periods — so a buyer cannot compute any part of an invoice from public material alone. In this market that is a common posture rather than a unique fault, but it sits at the bottom of this criterion.