Accounting
SumUp Rechnungen
EU-Made Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 1 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by SumUp Limited · sumup.de
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
SumUp Rechnungen (SumUp Limited) is an e-invoicing and payments product built around the vendor's own account, not accounting software. The scores cluster where the evidence does: receipts, banking & matching at 4-5, on automatic payment matching into the free SumUp business account, automatic expense entries, and XRechnung/ZUGFeRD created, received and tracked. Bookkeeping-adjacent criteria sit at the bottom — bookkeeping core 1-2 (no double-entry, SKR03/SKR04, journal, opening balances or period close evidenced), goBD, immutability & audit a flat 0 (no GoBD claim, retention statement or Verfahrensdokumentation anywhere), tax handling & filings 0-1 (no VAT, UStVA, ELSTER, EÜR or reverse-charge logic). Tax adviser handoff scores 2 on a single marketing line — 'Daten für Steuerberater direkt zugänglich' — with no DATEV or named export format. Sovereignty scores 0-1 because the evidence marks legal-entity jurisdiction, ownership, data residency and subprocessor exposure unknown. Pricing transparency scores 0-1: the only price facts are the 'Kostenloses Geschäftskonto inklusive' and a Mastercard 'ohne Zusatzkosten'. No split between the judges was large enough to flag — the visible score ranges are narrow and the split is one point at most.
Speaks for it
- Creates, receives and tracks e-invoices in XRechnung and ZUGFeRD
- Automatically matches invoice payments arriving on the SumUp business account
- Automatically creates expense entries when spending via the Geschäftskonto/Mastercard
- Includes the 'Kostenloses Geschäftskonto inklusive' and a Mastercard 'ohne Zusatzkosten'
- Receipts, banking & matching is the only criterion scoring above 3, at 4-5
Held against it
- No double-entry ledger, SKR03/SKR04, journal, opening balances or period close evidenced anywhere in the evidence
- GoBD, immutability & audit scores 0 — no GoBD claim, retention statement, audit trail or Verfahrensdokumentation in the captured pages
- No VAT, UStVA, ELSTER, EÜR or reverse-charge logic documented (tax handling & filings 0-1)
- Adviser handoff rests on the line 'Daten für Steuerberater direkt zugänglich', with no DATEV or named export format (tax adviser handoff 2)
- No public price, tier, limits or billing period for the invoicing product itself
Best for
- You issue and receive XRechnung/ZUGFeRD invoices and want incoming payments matched automatically
- You already run business spending through the SumUp business account and Mastercard and want expense entries created for you
- You keep the actual books in another system and use this only for invoicing and payment tracking
Avoid if
- Your records must survive a Betriebsprüfung under GoBD — goBD, immutability & audit scores 0 with no retention statement or Verfahrensdokumentation
- Your Steuerberater works in DATEV or needs any named export format — tax adviser handoff scores 2 on a single marketing sentence
- You must compute your annual cost before committing — the evidence shows no price, tier or limits for the invoicing product itself
- You need feeds for German banks other than SumUp's own account, receipt OCR, or ersetzendes Scannen/compliant archiving
The scores
Bookkeeping core
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Double-entry, the chart of accounts (SKR03/SKR04), postings, journals, opening balances and period closing — the ledger underneath the pretty screens.
0 — Income-and-expense lists only; no double-entry, no chart of accounts, no journal.
3 — Simplified bookkeeping suitable for EÜR with a fixed account list; no free posting, no period close.
5 — Double-entry with SKR03/SKR04, manual postings, journals, opening balances and a month-end close.
8 — Full ledger with cost centres, recurring and reversing entries, accruals, multi-year comparatives, and a documented close checklist with locking.
10 — An accountant's ledger: configurable charts including customised accounts, period locking with audit, foreign currency with documented valuation, group or multi-entity handling, and reporting that reconciles to the trial balance.
The Bookkeeper
Invoices out, expenses in: the captured page shows invoice creation and automatic expense entries when paying with the SumUp account, and not one word on double-entry, SKR03/04, journals, opening balances or a period close that locks. That is anchor-0 income-and-expense territory; a single point only because automatic payment matching at least ties events together. 1
The Tax Adviser
The evidence shows invoices, automatic expense entries and automatic payment matching — an income-and-expense list, not books. No double-entry, no SKR03/SKR04, no journal, no opening balances, no period close is evidenced anywhere, so this sits just above rubric level 0. 1
The Auditor
What is evidenced is invoicing plus an automatically generated expense list ("legt unsere Software automatisch einen Ausgabeneintrag an") and automatic payment matching — an income-and-expense world. No double-entry, no SKR03/SKR04, no journal, no opening balances, no period close appear anywhere in the registry; anchor-0 territory with a sliver of automation, hence 2. 1 3
The Founder
This is invoicing plus an income-and-expense list: automatic expense entries on the business account and automatic payment matching, but not one word on double-entry, SKR03/SKR04, journals, opening balances or a period close. That is exactly the bottom anchor — there's no ledger underneath the pretty screens. 1
The Integrator
There is no ledger under these screens: the evidence evidences invoice creation, automatic expense entries and payment matching, but not one word on double-entry, SKR03/SKR04, journals, opening balances or a period close. That is an income-and-expense list with a bank account attached, and the books the invoices feed into do not exist in this product. 1
The Skeptic
The evidence shows an invoicing and expense tracker — e-invoices sent and received, automatic expense entries from the business card, automatic payment matching — and not one word about double-entry, SKR03/SKR04, journals, opening balances or a period close. That is the anchor-0 income-and-expense list with a card attached; the single point is for the automatic linkage between account, expense and invoice. 1
GoBD, immutability & audit
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether the record survives a tax audit: unalterable postings, complete change history, retention across the statutory period, and a Verfahrensdokumentation the vendor actually supplies.
0 — Postings can be edited or deleted without trace; no retention statement, no GoBD claim, no documentation.
3 — GoBD asserted on the marketing page with nothing behind it — no described audit trail, no documentation offered, no statement on retention.
5 — Postings become unalterable after close with corrections booked as reversals, a change log exists, and the statutory retention period is stated.
8 — Documented GoBD conformity with a supplied Verfahrensdokumentation template, complete and exportable audit trail, receipts linked to postings, and a GoBD-compliant data export (GDPdU/Z3) for the auditor.
10 — Audit-ready as a product feature: an independent GoBD certification or attestation published, Verfahrensdokumentation maintained per release, tamper-evident journals, retention executed across the full statutory period, and an export the Betriebsprüfer accepts without argument.
The Bookkeeper
Nothing — no GoBD claim, no immutability or reversal mechanism, no retention period, no Verfahrensdokumentation anywhere in the captured product page or privacy policy. As far as this sheet goes, postings are editable database rows with no audit trail, which is exactly the anchor-0 case. 1 3
The Tax Adviser
Not a word about GoBD, unalterable postings, audit trail or retention in the entire the evidence; the privacy policy's only retention-adjacent statements are about deletion of children's data and one-month response times. rubric level 0: no retention statement, no GoBD claim, no documentation. 1 3
The Auditor
Nichts: no GoBD claim, no statement that postings become unalterable, no change log, no retention period, no Verfahrensdokumentation — I could not begin a Betriebsprüfung on this evidence. The only export-adjacent fact is a GDPR portability right limited to "exclusively information you provided," which is not an audit export. 1 3
The Founder
No GoBD claim, no retention statement, no audit trail and no Verfahrensdokumentation anywhere in the evidence; the privacy policy's only process commitments are deleting children's data and answering rights requests within a month. If my records can't show they'd survive a Betriebsprüfung, that's a zero from me. 1 3
The Integrator
GoBD is never claimed, immutability is never described, and no retention statement appears anywhere on the product page or in the privacy policy. Invoices produced here have no documented place where they would survive a Betriebsprüfung — silence on this criterion is the answer itself. 1 3
The Skeptic
No GoBD claim anywhere in the captured pages, no audit trail described, no retention statement for accounting records, no Verfahrensdokumentation offered. The closest retention text is GDPR deletion of children's data — nothing here is designed to survive a Betriebsprüfung as far as this evidence goes. 1 3
Tax handling & filings
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
VAT logic and the filings that follow: UStVA, ELSTER submission, EÜR or Bilanz, OSS for cross-border sales, and reverse-charge handling.
0 — No VAT logic beyond a rate field; no filings, no ELSTER.
3 — VAT rates and a UStVA figure to copy out by hand; no electronic submission, no special cases.
5 — UStVA prepared and submitted electronically via ELSTER, EÜR or a simple balance sheet produced, and reverse-charge and intra-community supply handled.
8 — The above plus OSS handling for cross-border B2C, Zusammenfassende Meldung, small-business (§19) and Ist/Soll taxation, permanent extension (Dauerfristverlängerung), and E-Bilanz where relevant.
10 — The filing year is handled end to end: every routine German filing generated and submitted electronically with validation before sending, cross-border VAT determined from the transaction rather than by hand, and correction filings supported.
The Bookkeeper
Not a single captured fact about VAT rates, UStVA, ELSTER, EÜR, OSS or reverse charge. It can emit an XRechnung, but a bill printer without evidenced tax logic or any filing path is a 0. 1
The Tax Adviser
The product page describes payment methods and e-invoice formats but no VAT logic, no UStVA, no ELSTER, no EÜR or Bilanz. The evidence is silent on everything this criterion needs, which lands it at rubric level 0. 1
The Auditor
Not one word on VAT rates, UStVA, ELSTER, EÜR, reverse charge or OSS in the captured facts — the product page talks XRechnung/ZUGFeRD formats but no filing logic whatsoever. Total silence scores at rubric level 0. 1
The Founder
They create and receive XRechnung and ZUGFeRD, so invoices carry VAT — and there it stops: no UStVA, no ELSTER submission, no EÜR, no reverse-charge. I'd still be typing figures into ELSTER myself, which is precisely the Sunday hour I pay to avoid. 1
The Integrator
Not even a VAT rate field is evidenced, let alone UStVA, ELSTER, EÜR or reverse-charge. An e-invoice product without documented German tax logic hands the entire filing year to the adviser to rebuild by hand. 1
The Skeptic
Not a single fact about VAT rates, UStVA, ELSTER, EÜR or reverse charge; the closest item is 'Daten für Steuerberater direkt zugänglich', which is hand-off, not a filing. Absence of evidence is the evidence, and it earns the bottom anchor. 1
Receipts, banking & matching
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How evidence and money get into the ledger: bank feeds, receipt capture, OCR, matching rules, and whether the digital receipt is legally sufficient on its own.
0 — Manual entry only; no bank connection, no receipt storage.
3 — Bank statement import by file and receipt upload as plain attachments; matching is entirely manual.
5 — Automatic bank feeds for the major German banks, receipt upload with OCR, suggested matches, and receipts linked to their postings.
8 — PSD2 feeds across many institutions, rule-based automatic matching with learning, e-invoice handling (ZUGFeRD/XRechnung) both directions, and replacement scanning (ersetzendes Scannen) documented so paper can be destroyed.
10 — The evidence chain is closed: every posting reaches its receipt in one click, e-invoicing inbound and outbound as standard, documented compliant archiving of the digital original, and matching accurate enough that exceptions rather than transactions are the work.
The Bookkeeper
Real substance here: automatic matching of invoice payments through the free SumUp business account, auto-created expense entries, and XRechnung/ZUGFeRD both directions. But the feed is their own account — third-party open banking is only a conditional 'falls wir Ihnen die Aktivierung ermöglichen' — and there is no OCR, no rule-based learning, no ersetzendes Scannen and no archiving story, so it sits between the manual-import and full-feed anchors. 1 3
The Tax Adviser
Real strengths here: XRechnung and ZUGFeRD created and received, automatic matching on the included business account, and open-banking via third parties mentioned in the privacy policy. But no OCR is claimed, external bank feeds are not documented beyond that vague open-banking line, and there is nothing on ersetzendes Scannen or compliant archiving — better than manual matching, short of the OCR-and-feeds anchor. 1 3
The Auditor
Automatic payment matching into the SumUp business account, automatic expense entries from card purchases, and e-invoices in and out in XRechnung/ZUGFeRD are real and above manual-only rubric level 3. But the bank is SumUp's own account, no external bank feeds or OCR are evidenced, and ersetzendes Scannen / compliant archiving of the digital original appears nowhere — that caps it between anchors. 1 3
The Founder
The genuinely good part: a free business account that auto-creates expense entries, auto-matches invoices paid into it, Mastercard for spend, and e-invoicing both directions, with open-banking third-party services at least mentioned. But the automation covers only their own account — no OCR, no automatic feeds for my other German banks, no ersetzendes Scannen or archiving documentation — so it's half of rubric level 5. 1 3
The Integrator
This is where the product genuinely wires things together: XRechnung and ZUGFeRD created and received, and invoice payments through the SumUp business account matched automatically — real reconciliation between money and document. But the banking circle is closed around SumUp's own account: no external bank feeds, no OCR for paper receipts, no ersetzendes Scannen, and third-party Open Banking appears only as a conditional clause in the privacy policy, not a documented feature. 1 3
The Skeptic
This is their strongest flank: e-invoices both directions in ZUGFeRD/XRechnung, automatic matching of payments arriving on the SumUp account, auto expense entries. But the 'bank' is their own single bundled account — no OCR for paper receipts, no feeds for the customer's real German banks, and third-party open banking appears only as a legal clause in the privacy policy, not as a shipped feature. 1 3
Tax adviser handoff
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How the books reach the Steuerberater — DATEV above all — and whether the adviser can work in the system rather than around it.
0 — No adviser access and no accounting export; the year-end is a pile of PDFs.
3 — Generic CSV or Excel export described as "suitable for your tax adviser", with no named format.
5 — A documented DATEV export (postings and, ideally, receipts) plus a read-only login for the adviser.
8 — DATEV export including receipt images with correct linking, or a maintained DATEV interface; the adviser gets their own scoped access with an audit of what they changed.
10 — The adviser is a first-class user: bidirectional DATEV exchange including corrections coming back, or a certified interface; period handover with locking, and a workflow where adviser queries are resolved inside the system.
The Bookkeeper
'Alle erforderlichen Daten direkt zugänglich machen' is a marketing sentence, not an interface: no DATEV named, no export format, no adviser login described. Marginally better than a pile of PDFs, hence above 0, but it is nowhere near a documented handoff. 1
The Tax Adviser
'Daten für Steuerberater direkt zugänglich' is a marketing sentence with no named format, no DATEV, no export description and no adviser login — it doesn't even reach the generic-CSV anchor. For my year-end handover this is a pile of PDFs in waiting. 1
The Auditor
A single marketing line — "Daten für Steuerberater direkt zugänglich" — with no named export format, no DATEV, no adviser login, no audit of adviser activity. That is more than nothing, but far below even the generic-CSV anchor of 3; I score 2. 1
The Founder
A single sentence promising my Steuerberater 'direct access to all required data' — no DATEV export, no named format, no adviser login. My accountant would be working around the system, not in it. 1
The Integrator
The entire handoff is one sentence: make the data 'direkt zugänglich' to the Steuerberater — no DATEV, no named export format, no adviser login, no audit of what the adviser touched. That is access to a screen, not a handover format an adviser can ingest. 1
The Skeptic
'Daten für Steuerberater direkt zugänglich' is a sentence, not an interface: no DATEV export named anywhere, no adviser login described, no format at all. That sits below even the generic-CSV anchor, which at least names a format. 1
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where the books live and who could be compelled to produce them — plus, uniquely here, whether statutory retention survives leaving the vendor. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline.
0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated or non-EU, subprocessors unnamed — with a ten-year retention obligation attached to data held abroad.
3 — EU hosting offered while the contracting entity is non-EU, or the subprocessor list is absent.
5 — EU hosting as standard and an EU contracting entity, but parts of the chain — OCR, AI categorisation, support tooling — are non-EU without an explained safeguard.
8 — EU or German hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, full subprocessor list published, and a stated export that satisfies retention if the contract ends.
10 — Sovereign and durable: German or EU hosting throughout, every subprocessor European, certification published, and a documented archive export that keeps the customer compliant for the full retention period after they leave.
The Bookkeeper
The computed score is 0 and the raw captures agree: legal entity, ownership, data residency and subprocessors all unknown, with the imprint and privacy policy confirming neither jurisdiction nor hosting. A German retention obligation attached to books whose location and custodian are entirely unstated fails the very first anchor. 2 3
The Tax Adviser
The pipeline scores it 0/10 and the captures bear that out: legal-entity jurisdiction, data residency and subprocessors are all unknown even after the imprint and privacy policy were captured. Where the books live and who could be compelled to produce them is entirely unconfirmed. 2 3 2
The Auditor
The "SumUp Limited" entity and UKCA marks sit oddly beside the Dublin/Berlin marketing, and nothing evidences that statutory retention survives leaving the vendor. 2 3 2
The Founder
The pipeline could not confirm even the contracting entity's jurisdiction, hosting location or a single subprocessor, and nothing addresses retention if I leave. Unnamed custodians holding ten years of my books is the bottom anchor, full stop. 2 3
The Integrator
Contracting entity, hosting location and subprocessors are all 'unknown' — the vendor's own captured pages never state where the books live or who processes them. With a ten-year retention obligation implied by German accounting law and no documented export that satisfies it, data residency silence is disqualifying, whatever the Dublin/Berlin provenance suggests. 3
The Skeptic
Residency, ownership and subprocessors are all 'unknown' even after capturing the imprint and privacy policy, while a ten-year books-retention obligation hangs over hosting nobody has stated. The name 'SumUp Limited' hints at Dublin, but the vendor's own captured pages confirm nothing, and the pipeline computed 0. 2 3
Pricing transparency
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a business can compute the real annual invoice — including the bookings, users, bank accounts and adviser access they actually need — from public pages alone.
0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.
3 — A headline monthly price exists, but booking or document limits, extra users or the tier where DATEV export begins are unstated.
5 — Tier prices public with billing period stated and the main limits given, but at least one commonly needed piece (DATEV export, extra bank accounts, adviser seat) sits in an unpriced tier.
8 — Every tier and add-on priced publicly with limits, overage, minimum term and VAT treatment stated; adviser access priced or explicitly free.
10 — Complete price computability: annual invoice derivable for a given transaction volume, user count and feature set, including overage and the year-end extras.
The Bookkeeper
The only price signals are a 'kostenloses Geschäftskonto' and a card 'ohne Zusatzkosten' — the invoicing product itself has no public price anywhere in the evidence, so no business can compute even the first euro of its annual invoice. 1
The Tax Adviser
The only price facts are 'kostenloses Geschäftskonto' and a Mastercard 'ohne Zusatzkosten'; the subscription price for the software itself, its limits and any tiers appear nowhere in the evidence. No public prices for the product means no annual invoice can be computed — a hair above rubric level 0 for the confirmed free components. 1
The Auditor
The only pricing facts captured are that the Geschäftskonto is "kostenlos" and the Mastercard comes "ohne Zusatzkosten" — included items, not a price. No tier price, limits, minimum term or VAT treatment for the invoicing product itself appears; an annual invoice is not computable from this registry. 1
The Founder
The only price facts are the 'kostenloses Geschäftskonto' and a no-extra-cost Mastercard; what Rechnungen itself costs per month, per user or per document — and where anything is limited — is nowhere. I cannot compute my annual invoice from this at all, which tells me the invoice will surprise me. 1
The Integrator
The only price facts on the evidence are that the business account and Mastercard are free; the invoicing product itself carries no public tier, no limits, no billing period. A merchant cannot compute their annual invoice from these pages, and the adviser-access cost is as invisible as the adviser format. 1
The Skeptic
The only price facts in the evidence are a 'kostenloses Geschäftskonto' and a Mastercard 'ohne Zusatzkosten'; the software's own tiers, booking limits, and the cost of a second bank account or any DATEV export are entirely absent. No business can compute a real annual invoice from this. 1
European sovereignty — proven facts
1 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Incorporated in IE ⚠ unverified | 3/3 pts | 2 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 31 Aug 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Legal entity. The privacy policy names several group entities as data controllers depending on product (SumUp Payments Limited in the UK, SumUp Limited in Ireland, SumUp EU Payments UAB in Lithuania), so the contracting entity may vary.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- 7 legal facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 compliance facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 product fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 subprocessors fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (3)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.