The six-judge bench splits along two lines. NAVEX One EthicsPoint leads the casework: case management means 6.8 to EQS Integrity Line's 5.2, with five judges leaning its way and one tie, and it also leads multi-entity scale (3.5 to 3.2; two leans its way, one the other, three ties) and compliance alignment (3.3 to 3.0; two leans, four ties). EQS Integrity Line leads security assurance at 6.7 to 2.7, with six leans and none against, and sovereignty at 4.7 to 2.3, with five leans and one tie. Reporting channels is level at 7.0 versus 7.0 — two leans each way, two ties. Pricing transparency reads 0.7 to 0.0 with four leans, though neither verdict counts pricing. Weighted totals favor EQS Integrity Line on four judges, NAVEX One EthicsPoint on the compliance officer (5.3 to 4.7), with the SME operator level at 5 to 5.
Choose EQS Integrity Line if
You must show your security reviewers named attestations — security assurance runs 6.7 to 2.7 with six judges leaning this way, resting on ISO 27001, a PwC ISAE 3000 Type I and II audit and CSA STAR.
Your data-residency policy requires EU-only storage under a German legal entity — the attributes list data residency as EU-only and jurisdiction as DE.
Your privacy office requires a stated subprocessor position — the attributes list subprocessor exposure as none.
Your group counsel or security auditor signs the purchase — their weighted totals read 4.1 to 3.8 and 5.2 to 3.1.
Reporter protection leads your criteria list — the reporter advocate's weighted total is 5.9 to 4.7.
Choose NAVEX One EthicsPoint if
Your investigators live inside the case tool — case management runs 6.8 to 5.2 with five judges leaning this way, covering auditable case history and implicated-party screening.
Your compliance officer holds the budget — their weighted total reads 5.3 to 4.7.
You run entities across several jurisdictions — multi-entity scale runs 3.5 to 3.2, with two leans this way, one the other way, three ties.
Directive alignment sits early in your rubric — compliance alignment runs 3.3 to 3.0 with two leans and four ties, though both verdicts describe the directive coverage as marketing.
You sit under a US parent that accepts US-default storage — the attributes list jurisdiction as US and data residency as US-default.
Read this comparison as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The Reporter's Advocate
Judges from the frightened side of the form. Optimizes for anonymity that survives contact, a two-way dialog without an account, languages the workforce actually speaks, and channels that work on a night-shift phone. Rejects login walls, app installs and anything that makes reporting feel like a deposition.
EQS Integrity Line
This judge's pick
NAVEX One EthicsPoint
Criterion by criterion
Reporting channels & reporter experience
EQS Integrity Line
Anonymous two-way dialog is claimed as first-class — whistleblower, case handler and external experts — with 80+ languages, browser auto-detect, in-system machine translation, mobile optimization, WCAG bronze and a written no-tracking statement. But the only 'telephone' channel is the caseworker creating a case from a call or letter; there is no evidenced reporter-facing hotline, voice intake or QR entry, and nothing promises the reporter needs no account or app install. Dialog and languages nearly reach 8; the night-shift phone channel and the identity-out-of-the-channel documentation are missing.
NAVEX One EthicsPoint
Web, mobile and phone intake 24/7 in 60+ languages, anonymous or named, with machine translations for report details and follow-ups — that serves the night-shift caller well. But nothing shows the mobile route needs no app or account, accessibility is never mentioned, and the privacy statement admits cookies, beacons, tags and scripts collect personal information inside the Application — nobody documents that the reporter's identity stays out of the channel itself.
Case management & deadline discipline
EQS Integrity Line
Integrated case management with a per-activity revision log, granular need-to-know rights, configurable dual control, partial case anonymisation and real-time dashboards — permissions and audit trail sit above rubric level 5. But the evidence is silent on the statutory clocks: no 7-day acknowledgment or 3-month feedback tracking, no retention/deletion per case, no conflict-of-interest exclusion — nothing on this page forces anyone to ever answer the reporter.
NAVEX One EthicsPoint
Complete auditable case history, per-user view/edit visibility, role-based permissions with safeguards that keep implicated parties out of case files, and Power BI management reporting. It falls short of the top anchors because 'reminders' is the only nod to deadlines — no evidenced 7-day/3-month statutory clocks — and retention is explicitly 'as directed by our business customer', so deletion discipline is outsourced.
Legal compliance alignment
EQS Integrity Line
The only legal facts are marketing sentences that the hotline 'fully complies' with the EU Whistleblowing Directive and GDPR. No feature mapping, no national transposition such as HinSchG, no legal templates or named counsel, and the deadline duties appear nowhere as product behaviour — the directive is invoked, the implementation is the customer's problem. That is rubric level 3 exactly.
NAVEX One EthicsPoint
The directive appears only as marketing: 'meet whistleblowing requirements like the EU Whistleblowing Directive and SOX' and WhistleB's 'alignment with the EU Whistleblowing Directive and national legislation' name no transposition, no implemented deadline rule, no legal review. Retention periods are delegated to the customer, which is exactly the anchor-3 pattern of vague invocation and shifted burden.
Security & anonymity assurance
EQS Integrity Line
ISO 27001 for EQS Group and its data centres, a PwC ISAE 3000 Type I & II audit, STAR Registry, OWASP threat analysis, WAF, 2FA as standard, and a written claim that EQS Group 'can at no time access' report data plus no user tracking. Held below 8: no published penetration test reports, no documented encryption architecture, no metadata/IP-logging detail and no disclosure policy to back the we-cannot-unmask promise — I have the vendor's word, not its homework.
NAVEX One EthicsPoint
Encryption and 'privacy protections built into AI-supported tools' are asserted words, and MFA plus role-based access are real, but there is no certificate, no pentest, no no-IP-logging statement anywhere in the registry. Worse, the privacy statement affirmatively discloses collection of personal information via cookies, beacons, tags and scripts inside the Application — for a product promising anonymity, silence on metadata plus an affirmative collection statement is the opposite of assurance.
Group & multi-entity capability
EQS Integrity Line
Nothing evidences per-entity channels, separated entity case access, a consolidated group view or ombudsman roles; the only group-adjacent facts are single-instance branding, granular user rights and external experts joining the dialog. Not even 'multiple channels under one account' is on the page, so a corporate group cannot be scoped from this sheet.
NAVEX One EthicsPoint
'Global collaboration across languages and regions' and up to two custom workflows for regions hint at groups, and 13,000+ customers with 75% of the Fortune 500 prove big companies buy it. But the evidence never evidences per-entity channels, per-entity branding, ombudsman access or case-access separation along legal-entity lines — I see the customer list, not the architecture.
European sovereignty
EQS Integrity Line
Exclusive German hosting, a named Munich East data centre and a German vendor entity are solid anchor-8 material. But no DPA and no subprocessor list appear on any captured page, the vendor now sits under US private-equity ownership (Thoma Bravo), and 'geographically distributed' backup data centres leave open where copies of my report sleep — that pulls it back down.
NAVEX One EthicsPoint
WhistleB promises 'Data is stored in the EU', but this is a Lake Oswego, Oregon vendor, and every sovereignty attribute in the evidence is unknown: no DPA, no subprocessor list, no named data centers, with NAVEX acting merely as the customer's processor. EU storage asserted by a US entity over an undocumented chain is barely a step above the floor.
Pricing transparency
EQS Integrity Line
Across five captured pages the only pricing fact is a 'Start free trial' button — no tier, employee band, entity rule or setup fee is public anywhere. An obligated company cannot compute anything from this sheet; rubric level 0 with a trial-button courtesy.
NAVEX One EthicsPoint
The pages sell three solutions and a 'fast, affordable way', and a professional tier for enterprises, but not a single number — no prices, bands, entity rules or setup fees — appears anywhere in the registry. Every tier is a sales conversation, which is the definition of the zero anchor.
Sovereignty, side by side
Dimension
EQS Integrity Line
NAVEX One EthicsPoint
Legal entity
Not determined
Incorporated in US
Ownership
Not determined
Not determined
Data residency
EU only
Not determined
Subprocessors
Not determined
Not determined
Facts, side by side
Only facts both products carry under the same definition — anything else would not be a fair row.