DOMUS vs Karthago

DOMUS

The published pages on posting the Wirtschaftsplan and creating the annual Hausgeld settlement show the subject is addressed, but the form of the settlement stays invisible: I found no public information on the Abrechnungsspitze being shown separately, on the Rücklage held as segregated trust money, on configurable distribution keys, or on heating costs apportioned per HeizkostenV. I will not credit a settlement whose arithmetic I cannot see.

Karthago

"Doppelte Buchhaltung" and a "WEG- & Nebenkostenabrechnung" module are named, so this is more than raw bookkeeping — but the evidence says nothing about a Wirtschaftsplan, configurable distribution keys, or the Rücklage as segregated trust money, and nothing on the Abrechnungsspitze or HeizkostenV apportionment. A settlement module I cannot trace to keys or segregated reserves is template-level in my books.

DOMUS

Pages on an online voting module for owners' meetings and on new WEG meeting functions exist, so convening and voting are at least marketed. I found no public information on majority arithmetic per resolution type, proxy handling, or a continuously maintained resolution register with amendment notes, and that register is what the law demands the administrator keep.

Karthago

The evidence is entirely silent on convening, agendas, minutes, majority arithmetic or a Beschluss-Sammlung; the only owner-facing mention is generic "Kommunikation mit Eigentümern und Mietern". No meeting support is evidenced at all, which the anchors score as zero.

DOMUS

A portal named homecase appears, with documents placed online in it, but I found no public information on per-owner logins, an owner's own statements, meeting papers, or a defect report with visible status. Since per-owner scoping is not described anywhere I can see, I cannot say the owner's right to inspect the records is discharged.

Karthago

Communication with owners and tenants is claimed inside the one solution, but no owner portal, per-owner login, statement access or defect form is evidenced anywhere — the only form the evidence shows is the vendor's own sales consultation. Without any per-owner scoping evidence I cannot credit real self-service.

DOMUS

There is a service-case maintenance portal and a communication platform running directly with the craftsmen and service providers, which is the right shape for the building side. I found no public information on warranty periods tracked against the responsible trade, statutory inspections with proof of completion stored, or a recurring maintenance calendar with reminders, so the operating record is not yet defensible.

Karthago

"Digitales Facility Management" appears in the module list, which is more than a notebook, but the evidence shows no defect records with status, no recurring-maintenance calendar, no statutory inspection tracking and no contractor work orders. I credit the module's existence, not capabilities the evidence does not evidence.

DOMUS

A page on report and data exports exists and documents can be placed online, which is more than folders on a drive. I found no public information on version history, full-text search, retention executed per statutory period for the community archive, or a handover package a successor administrator could actually load; the retention periods the privacy policy states concern personal data, not the archive.

Karthago

"Integriertes Dokumentenmanagement" is named, but there is no versioning, no stated retention policy and no defined handover export — rubric level 3 territory. The Verwaltungsübergabe is a statutory event and it is completely unaddressed.

DOMUS

The contracting party is a German stock corporation with a Munich register number, analytics run self-hosted with no third-party sharing, and embedded videos route through Google Ireland. I found no public information on where the community's financial records are hosted or which subprocessors touch them, so the sovereignty chain stops at the front door.

Karthago

German cloud servers are explicitly claimed with certified data protection, and on-premise keeps every posting in the Verwaltung's own hands — genuinely good signals. But the subprocessor list is absent, the hosting infrastructure is unnamed beyond "deutsche Server", and the contracting structure is muddied by Aareon appearing in the consent text without clarification, so the anchor that punishes an absent subprocessor list caps this.

DOMUS

I found no public price figure on any captured page; the offer is expressly requested within a consultation, with a product configurator beforehand, and purchase runs through a partner's online shop whose prices are not shown. An administrator cannot compute the annual cost for their units and communities from public pages on this evidence.

Karthago

Not a single price appears in the captured pages; the only commercial path is a consultation form demanding managed units and workstation counts — the textbook "every quote is a sales conversation". A Verwalter cannot compute any annual cost from these pages.