whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Accounting

e-conomic

Provenance unknown Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: not determined

0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.

by Visma e-conomic A/S · www.e-conomic.com

Report an error on this page Is this your product? →

Link to this page

e-conomic: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai e-conomic: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai (dark)

Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds. The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.

e-conomic at a glance

Vendor
Visma e-conomic A/S
Headquarters
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
Data hosting
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
Free plan
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
Panel verdict
The AI panel rates e-conomic 1.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. e-conomic, from Visma e-conomic A/S, earns its best marks where the money already flows: documents and banking scores range from 4 to 7, built on Aiia bank feeds several times a day, automatic reconciliation matching by date and amount, machine-learning posting suggestions and rules posting recurring entries to a counter account. how scores are made
As of
Vendor pages captured 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources

e-conomic alternatives, European ones first →

Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.

The Skeptic

Weighted verdict

Has seen "GoBD-konform" printed on pages that offer no documentation to back it, and wants the feature that makes it true. Also reads for the booking limit, the tier where DATEV export appears, and what an extra bank account costs.

Same scores as the panel view — this lens weights them the way this judge cares.

Scored by The Skeptic

Panel median The Skeptic This judge’s scores over the panel median. Each label opens its reasoning below.
Scores per criterion, in stars out of 5
Criterion Panel median The Skeptic
Bookkeeping core 2 of 5 2 of 5
GoBD, immutability & audit 0 of 5 0 of 5
Tax handling & filings 1 of 5 1 of 5
Receipts, banking & matching 3 of 5 3 of 5
Tax adviser handoff 2 of 5 2 of 5
European sovereignty 1.5 of 5 1 of 5

Bookkeeping core

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.

Report an error

The Skeptic

Invoice booking through the API, product groups driving sales accounts by VAT zone, and multiple dimension layers show a real posting engine underneath. But I found no public information on SKR03/SKR04, opening balances, or any period close with locking, and the skeptic in me wants to see the close before calling it a ledger. 2 3 4

Report an error

GoBD, immutability & audit

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.

Report an error

The Skeptic

I found no public information on GoBD conformity at all — no claim on the marketing pages, no Verfahrensdokumentation, no described audit trail, no retention statement. A printed "GoBD-konform" at least names something I can demand documentation for; here I found nothing to test. 1 4

Report an error

Tax handling & filings

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.

Report an error

The Skeptic

VAT zones that switch the sales account per customer and invoice show real VAT logic, which is more than a rate field. But I found no public information on any filing — no UStVA, no electronic ELSTER submission, no EÜR or balance sheet output, no OSS or reverse-charge handling. 2 5

Report an error

Receipts, banking & matching

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.

Report an error

The Skeptic

This is where the evidence lives: automatic Aiia feeds several times a day, matching on date and amount, machine-learning posting suggestions, and rule-based handling of recurring entries — a working automatic pipeline, plus multiple bank accounts and foreign currency reconciliation. I found no public information on receipt OCR, ZUGFeRD/XRechnung e-invoicing, or replacement scanning and archiving, which is what separates this from the top grades. 3 4 5

Report an error

Tax adviser handoff

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.

Report an error

The Skeptic

Direct, digital access for the accountant is stated plainly, which is more than a year-end pile of PDFs. But I read for the DATEV export and the tier where it appears, and I found no public information on DATEV or any named export format, nor on whether the adviser's access is read-only or scoped with an audit of changes. 1

Report an error

European sovereignty

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.

Report an error

The Skeptic

No sovereignty attributes are on record: hosting location, subprocessor list, certification and any archive export that keeps retention alive after leaving are all unevidenced. The vendor name suggests a Danish contracting entity, which keeps this off the floor, but I found no public information confirming EU hosting or naming any subprocessor — and Aiia handles the bank data with that relationship undocumented on these pages. 1 5

Report an error

Pricing transparency not rated — the vendor publishes no price

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.

Report an error

The Skeptic

One package's feature list is published — bank integration, extended approval, an extra user, a holding-company agreement — but I found no public information on any price, booking limit, billing period, or what an extra bank account costs. A buyer cannot compute a single month's invoice from these pages, let alone the year's. 4

Report an error

Questions about e-conomic

Is e-conomic European?

Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where e-conomic is based.

Where does e-conomic store data?

Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.

Does e-conomic have a free plan?

Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.

What are the best alternatives to e-conomic?

As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates Papierkram (3.5/5), sevDesk (3/5) and BuchhaltungsButler (3/5) highest among the other 24 Accounting products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is Papierkram (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: e-conomic alternatives.

Where this could be wrong

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.

Do you know more about e-conomic? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (5)

The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.

  1. 1 Vendor page www.e-conomic.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Bookkeeping core — found from sitemap www.e-conomic.dk Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Bookkeeping core — found from sitemap www.e-conomic.dk Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Receipts, banking & matching — found from sitemap www.e-conomic.dk Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Receipts, banking & matching — found from sitemap www.e-conomic.dk Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →