DOMUS vs Karthago

DOMUS

The vendor's own pages carry product functions for posting the Wirtschaftsplan and creating the owner settlement under WEG 2.0, which is more than generic bookkeeping. We found no public information on configurable distribution keys, separate trust accounting for the reserve fund, or the separately displayed settlement balance, so I place this between template help and verified generation from the ledger.

Karthago

Doppelte Buchhaltung and a WEG-/Nebenkosten-Abrechnung module are named, which is more than plain bookkeeping, but the evidence is silent on Wirtschaftsplan, distribution keys, trust treatment of the Rücklage and the post-2021 BGH settlement form — none of the statutory specifics can be credited.

DOMUS

Two product pages evidence a voting module for online owners' meetings and further meeting functions in the homecase portal — actual voting support, not just invitation templates. We found no public information on the resolution register, per-resolution majority arithmetic, or amendment and invalidation notes; and because such a module records how named owners voted, where that processing runs matters, and we found no public information on that either.

Karthago

The module list and the product-scope text name no meeting function at all — no invitations, no voting support, no Beschluss-Sammlung — and on this sheet absence of evidence is the evidence: the capability does not exist.

DOMUS

The captured pages show a portal that puts documents online for owners and carries the online meeting functions, alongside a service-case maintenance portal — more than a shared download folder. We found no public information on per-owner visibility separation, a distinct tenant view, or an access log showing who opened which document, so the statutory inspection right cannot be shown to be discharged inside the portal.

Karthago

The only owner-facing claim is 'Kommunikation mit Eigentümern und Mietern' inside the administrator's tool; there is no portal, no per-owner login, and — my core demand — not one word on separating owner and tenant visibility or logging who saw whose arrears.

DOMUS

A service-case maintenance portal and a communications platform run with trades and service providers are both evidenced, so defect intake and contractor contact sit within the product's own ecosystem rather than outside it. We found no public information on recurring maintenance schedules with reminders, warranty period tracking, or stored proof of statutory inspections, and nothing on which party holds the contractor correspondence data.

Karthago

'Digitales Facility Management' appears as a bare module label; nothing evidences defect records with status, contractor work orders, statutory inspection schedules with stored proof of completion, or warranty tracking, so I can only credit a ticket-list level at best.

DOMUS

Documents can be placed online in the portal and a reports-and-data export function exists, but we found no public information showing that export as a structured handover package a successor administrator could load. The only retention figures we found govern the vendor's own website and application files — seven-day logs, 360-day self-hosted analytics, three years for subject-rights records — and we found no public information on retention executed for the statutory periods of community records, version history, or an access log over the archive.

Karthago

Integrated document management is claimed, but retention periods that actually execute, version history and an access log over the archive are all silent, and no defined handover export exists — for a system holding bank details and arrears of people who never chose the vendor, that silence is the finding.

DOMUS

The vendor is a German stock corporation with a Munich commercial register entry, self-hosted analytics, and a privacy policy naming EU adequacy decisions or standard contractual clauses as the basis for any third-country transfer. We found no public information on where the communities' records — names, addresses, bank details, arrears of people who never chose this vendor — are hosted, on ownership, or on any subprocessor list, and no answer on where automated document or invoice processing would send a file, which is precisely the chain this buyer needs named.

Karthago

German servers with 'zertifiziertem Datenschutz' plus a full on-premise option are genuine positives, but no certification or infrastructure is named, no subprocessor list exists, and there is no answer on where the automated invoice import sends a document; the privacy page itself routes personal data to Aareon and TeamViewer sits unlisted in the support chain.

DOMUS

Pricing on the captured pages arrives as a quote requested inside a consultation call, with a product configurator beforehand and the online shop of the distribution partner TSA Solution GmbH named as a purchase route — the only reason this is not the floor. We found no public prices per unit or per community, no billing period, setup or migration costs, and no VAT treatment, so an administrator cannot compute the annual cost from public pages.

Karthago

No price figure appears anywhere on the evidence; the only route to cost is a consultation form harvesting Verwaltete Einheiten and Benötigte Arbeitsplätze — the textbook sales conversation of rubric level 0.