DOMUS vs Karthago

DOMUS

The captured pages show dedicated product pages on booking the Wirtschaftsplan and on creating the Hausgeldabrechnung under WEG 2.0, which goes beyond plain bookkeeping. But we found no public information on configurable distribution keys, the separately shown Abrechnungsspitze, heating-cost apportionment or how the Rücklage is kept apart from ordinary balances — the arithmetic I would have to check against invoices as an owner is not laid out.

Karthago

Doppelte Buchhaltung and a WEG- & Nebenkostenabrechnung module exist, so the settlement is more than a template someone fills by hand. But the evidence is silent on a Wirtschaftsplan, on distribution keys (MEA, units, consumption) and on the Rücklage held separately in trust — and a settlement whose keys I cannot check and whose arithmetic I cannot follow back to postings is not one I would recommend to the assembly.

DOMUS

There are own pages on a voting module for online owners' meetings and on new WEG meeting functions in homecase, so convening and running meetings is clearly addressed in the product. We found no public information on the Beschluss-Sammlung as a maintained numbered register, on quorum and majority arithmetic, or on proxy handling — and a current resolution register is exactly what I check before recommending a settlement.

Karthago

Nothing on invitations, notice periods, agendas, voting arithmetic or a maintained Beschluss-Sammlung appears anywhere in the evidence; the nearest fact is 'Kommunikation mit Eigentümern und Mietern', which is correspondence, not a meeting. As the evidence stands, the resolution register is a document somewhere else — rubric level 0.

DOMUS

Documents are placed online in homecase and there is a maintenance portal, with owners' meetings run online. We found no public information on per-owner scoping, on owners seeing their own statements or arrears, or on defect status being visible to the reporter, so I cannot tell whether each neighbour sees only their own papers.

Karthago

The only owner-facing capability evidenced is that communication with owners and tenants happens 'in einer Lösung'; there is no portal, no per-owner login, no statements or meeting papers on demand, and no defect form that reaches the administrator. I cannot confirm a single owners' right of inspection is self-served, so this scores just above nothing.

DOMUS

Dedicated pages describe a service-case maintenance portal and a communication platform with craftsmen and service providers, so defect intake and contractor contact sit inside the product rather than by phone. We found no public information on a recurring maintenance calendar with reminders, statutory inspection duties with stored proof, or quotes and invoices linked to the defect record.

Karthago

'Digitales Facility Management' appears as a module name and nothing more — no defect intake with status, no recurring maintenance calendar with reminders, no statutory inspection records, no contractor handling. A label without substance sits at the ticket-list anchor, and the evidence trail that would show what the administrator knew and when is absent.

DOMUS

A page on report and data exports exists and documents are published in homecase, which is more than a shared drive. We found no public information on version history, full-text search, retention periods for community records, or whether the export forms a complete handover package a successor administrator could actually load.

Karthago

'Integriertes Dokumentenmanagement' suggests central storage, but the evidence says nothing about search, version history, retention periods or any defined handover export. Handover of our records to a successor is a statutory event, and as evidenced here it would still mean copying folders.

DOMUS

The contracting entity is a German AG with seat, register court and VAT number published, and web analytics run self-hosted on their own servers. But the hosting location for the community's financial records is unstated, no subprocessor list is published, and the privacy policy contemplates transfers to third countries under adequacy decisions or standard contractual clauses — as an owner I could not say where our settlement data lives.

Karthago

German servers with 'zertifizierter Datenschutz' are stated as the cloud standard and the vendor is German by provenance, which is better than hosting-as-option — but the contracting entity turns out to be Aareon with jurisdiction unconfirmed, infrastructure unnamed, and no subprocessor list anywhere, with TeamViewer in support touching our screens without a stated basis. Missing-evidence pulls this down to the anchor that matches an absent subprocessor list, nudged up only by the German-server claim.

DOMUS

Pricing runs through an offer request form within a consultation conversation, with a product configurator and a partner shop operated by TSA Solution GmbH alongside it. We found no public information on prices, per-unit arithmetic, term or setup costs, so the annual cost for a community is not computable from public pages.

Karthago

Not one number appears in the evidence; the only route to a price is a consultation form that demands my managed units and required workstations before anyone speaks to me, and on-premise 'keine Mietkosten' hints at a licence without stating one. That is rubric level 0 exactly — every quote a sales conversation.