Accounting
FastBill
EU-Made Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 3 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by FastBill GmbH · www.fastbill.com
Compare with Lexware Office → 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
FastBill is an invoicing and pre-bookkeeping tool for German small businesses that prepares data for a Steuerberater rather than keeping a ledger itself. It is strongest at receipts, banking & matching: ZUGFeRD and XRechnung e-invoices both ways in every plan, a scan app with OCR, and automatic bank matching and portal receipt import at the top tiers. Tax handling & filings rests on a fully automatic UStVA — Ist and Soll, Kleinunternehmer configurable, one click to the Finanzamt without an ELSTER certificate from the smallest tier — with nothing evidenced beyond the pre-return. Tax adviser handoff delivers DATEV XML export from Solo and DATEV Rechnungsdatenservice 1.0 in Pro, but one-way. Weakest are bookkeeping core (2-3: no ledger, no SKR03/SKR04, no period close) and goBD, immutability & audit (3-4: one retention bullet, no audit trail). The judges did not materially split — flagged splits show none above threshold — though pricing transparency spans 6-8 as the Founder credits near-computable tiers while Skeptic and Bookkeeper dock the 'ab 53 €' Premium price. Sovereignty scores 5-6: German hosting and a Frankfurt GmbH, but US processors behind SCCs and no stated exit export.
Speaks for it
- E-invoicing sent and received in ZUGFeRD and XRechnung in every plan
- Fully automatic UStVA submitted to the Finanzamt with one click, without an ELSTER certificate, from the smallest tier
- DATEV XML export of invoices and Belege from the Solo tier, with DATEV Rechnungsdatenservice 1.0 in Pro
- Scan app with OCR plus automatic bank matching and portal receipt import at the top tiers
- German contracting entity (FastBill GmbH, AG Frankfurt am Main, HRB 109200) with hosting in Germany and EU Standard Contractual Clauses for third-country transfers
Held against it
- No double-entry ledger — no SKR03/SKR04, journal, opening balances or period close anywhere in the evidence
- GoBD rests on one feature line plus a retention statement, with no Verfahrensdokumentation, audit trail or auditor export
- Filing support stops at the UStVA — no EÜR, reverse-charge, intra-community supply or OSS evidenced
- Adviser handoff is one-way: no adviser login, no scoped access, no audit of what the adviser changed
- US processors (Intercom, MailChimp, Calendly) in the support chain covered only by SCCs, and no evidenced export keeping statutory retention alive after contract end
Best for
- You are a freelancer or Kleinunternehmer who needs automatic UStVA filing and hands the year-end to your Steuerberater
- Your adviser works in DATEV and expects invoice and receipt data in DATEV format, starting from the Solo tier
- You must exchange e-invoices in ZUGFeRD and XRechnung in both directions across all plans
- You want receipts captured automatically — scan app with OCR and portal import — feeding an income/expense overview
Avoid if
- You want to keep the double-entry ledger yourself and close accounting periods inside the product
- You expect a documented GoBD audit trail, Verfahrensdokumentation or auditor export
- You file beyond the VAT pre-return, needing EÜR, reverse-charge, intra-community supply or OSS
- You want your Steuerberater to log in and work inside the system rather than around it
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
There is no ledger in this sheet: no double-entry, no SKR03/04, no journal, no opening balances, and nowhere a period close that locks — what's evidenced is Einnahmen/Ausgaben tracking, automatic receipt categorisation, and a bundled export for the Steuerberater to do the actual booking. Even the VAT machinery implies categories, not accounts, and no account list or EÜR is ever described. 1 2
The Tax Adviser
The vendor's own words are 'Behalte den Überblick über deine Einnahmen und Ausgaben' — an income/expense overview with banking and categorisation, nothing more. No SKR03/04, no journal, no opening balances and no period close appear anywhere in the evidence; the DATEV export mapping implies some fixed account scheme, so this is EÜR-grade simplified bookkeeping, not a ledger I could close a year on. 1
The Auditor
What is documented is Belegerfassung, Zahlungszuordnung and a bundled DATEV export to the Steuerberater — an Einnahmen-Ausgaben-Übersicht with categorisation, not a ledger. No SKR03/SKR04, no journal, no opening balances and no period close appear anywhere; the Buchführung itself evidently happens at the adviser. EÜR-grade pre-bookkeeping, nothing more. 1 2
The Founder
The workflow is receipts in, payments assigned, then everything exported to the Steuerberater — E1 literally walks you out of the product at year end. No SKR03/SKR04, no journal, no opening balances, no period close anywhere in the evidence; even the fixed account list of the EÜR anchor isn't evidenced, just automatic categorisation. Simplified EÜR-adjacent bookkeeping at best, the double-entry ledger stays at my adviser. 1 2
The Integrator
Everything evidenced is invoicing plus income/expense tracking — 'Behalte den Überblick über deine Einnahmen und Ausgaben' with expense capture, payment matching and automatic categorisation — and nowhere in four captured pages do double-entry, SKR03/SKR04, journals, opening balances or a period close appear; the books themselves are explicitly outsourced to the Steuerberater via export. 1 2
The Skeptic
Everything on the evidence describes income-and-expense preparation for someone else's books: an Einnahmen-Ausgaben overview, automatic categorisation, and a bundled export the Steuerberater then books. No SKR03/SKR04, no journal, no free postings, no opening balances, no period close anywhere in the evidence — this is EÜR hand-off, not a ledger. 1 2
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
"GoBD-konforme Aufbewahrung" is a marketing bullet and the privacy policy does state 2–10 year retention (up to 30 for enforceable claims) — that's more than a bare claim, but there is nothing behind it: no unalterable postings, no change log, no Verfahrensdokumentation, no auditor export, and since no ledger is evidenced there are no postings to make unalterable. 2 4
The Tax Adviser
'GoBD-konforme Aufbewahrung' is a single marketing line, and while the statutory retention period (ten years, up to thirty) is genuinely stated, there is no Verfahrensdokumentation, no change log, no immutability after close — indeed no close at all to lock a period against. That is a retention promise with nothing audit-shaped behind it. 2 4
The Auditor
One marketing line — 'GoBD-konforme Aufbewahrung' — with no Verfahrensdokumentation, no change log, no unalterable postings and no GDPdU/Z3 export for the auditor. Credit only for the retention statements (10 years, up to 30) in the privacy policy; that is a retention assertion, not an audit trail. 2 4
The Founder
GoBD appears exactly once, as a retention bullet ('GoBD-konforme Aufbewahrung', E2), and the privacy policy does state 2–10 year retention for invoice-relevant documents (E4) — that is the entire story. No unalterable postings, no change history, no Verfahrensdokumentation, no auditor export. A marketing claim plus a retention sentence does not survive a Betriebsprüfung on its own. 2 4
The Integrator
GoBD appears as a single feature bullet ('GoBD-konforme Aufbewahrung') with a stated 2–10 year retention in the privacy policy, but there is no described audit trail, no immutability or reversal mechanics, no Verfahrensdokumentation and no auditor export — one claim on archiving does not make records survive an audit. 2 4
The Skeptic
'GoBD-konforme Aufbewahrung' is five words on the pricing page with nothing behind it — the exact thing I've seen printed a hundred times. No Verfahrensdokumentation offered, no described audit trail, not one word on unalterable postings or change history; the only adjacent fact is the privacy policy's ten-year retention statement, and a GDPR page is not audit substance. 2 4
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
The UStVA is genuinely handled: fully automatic, Ist and Soll, §19 configurable, submitted to the Finanzamt with one click and no ELSTER certificate — and that in the smallest tariff. But the evidence is silent on EÜR, Bilanz, reverse-charge/intra-community, OSS and Dauerfristverlängerung, so the filing year ends at the VAT pre-return. 1 2
The Tax Adviser
UStVA is truly electronic — submitted 'mit einem Klick ans Finanzamt, ganz ohne ELSTER-Zertifikat' from the smallest tier, with Ist/Soll and the Kleinunternehmerregelung configurable. But the evidence is silent on EÜR output, reverse-charge and intra-community supply, let alone OSS or Dauerfristverlängerung, so the filing story ends at the Voranmeldung. 1 2
The Auditor
UStVA prepared fully automatically and transmitted to the Finanzamt with one click, without ELSTER certificate, with Ist/Soll and Kleinunternehmerregelung settable — rubric level 5's core honestly met. Reverse-charge and intra-community supply are not evidenced, and no EÜR, OSS, Zusammenfassende Meldung or correction filing appears in the evidence. 1 2
The Founder
The thing I care about is real and cheap: fully automatic UStVA from the smallest tier, Ist and Soll both, Kleinunternehmerregelung configurable, one click to the Finanzamt with no ELSTER certificate (E1, E2). But it stops at the Voranmeldung — no EÜR, no reverse-charge or intra-community handling, no OSS, no ZM in the evidence, so the year-end is my adviser's problem, not the product's. 1 2
The Integrator
The UStVA leg is genuinely strong — fully automatic, Ist and Soll, Kleinunternehmer configurable, submitted to the Finanzamt with one click without an ELSTER certificate even in the smallest tier — but there is no evidence of EÜR or Bilanz output, reverse-charge, intra-community supply or OSS, which is consistent with a product that hands the year-end to the adviser. 1 2
The Skeptic
The UStVA is prepared and transmitted to the Finanzamt with one click even in the cheapest tier, with Ist/Soll and the Kleinunternehmerregelung configurable — genuinely solid. But it stops there: no EÜR or balance sheet produced, no reverse-charge, no OSS, no Zusammenfassende Meldung anywhere in the evidence. 1 2
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
Own scan app with OCR, automatic receipt import and capture, automatic bank matching, a missing-receipts report, and ZUGFeRD/XRechnung in both directions across all plans — that is a decent capture pipeline and the exception report is the right instinct. But no PSD2 breadth, no rule-based learning, no documented ersetzendes Scannen, and no one-click posting-to-receipt chain since postings as such aren't evidenced. 1 2
The Tax Adviser
Scan app with OCR, automatic bank matching and automatic receipt import at the top tiers, metered bank accounts per plan, and e-invoices in ZUGFeRD and XRechnung both directions — a real feed-to-receipt chain. Ersatzendes Scannen is never documented and automatic receipt processing is metered (30 Belege included), so whether paper may be destroyed and what volume costs stay open. 1 2
The Auditor
Scan-App with Texterkennung, automatischer Bankabgleich in Premium, Belegimport from portals, and ZUGFeRD/XRechnung sent and received in every tariff — the evidence chain is partly closed. Rule-based matching with learning, breadth of PSD2 connections and ersetzendes Scannen are not evidenced, so I cannot certify paper destruction. 1 2
The Founder
Premium is my Sunday: automatic bank matching, automatic receipt import across five portals, scan app with OCR, 30 processed receipts included, and e-invoices ZUGFeRD/XRechnung in both directions in every plan (E1, E2) — that clears the anchor-5 bar and two planks of rubric level 8. What's missing is the paperwork: no documented ersetzendes Scannen, no rule-based matching with learning, no PSD2-breadth claim. 1 2
The Integrator
E-invoicing both directions in ZUGFeRD and XRechnung across all plans, a scan app with OCR, automatic receipt import from portals and automatic bank matching clear rubric level 5 comfortably and part of 8; what's missing is PSD2 feed breadth, rule-based matching that learns, and any documentation of ersetzendes Scannen before I trust the paper to the shredder. 1 2
The Skeptic
Scan app with OCR, automatic bank matching, portal-based receipt import and ZUGFeRD/XRechnung in both directions are all evidenced — but the automation sits in Premium (30 receipts included, more as paid add-ons from 10 €) or in priced add-ons. No PSD2 breadth claim, no rule learning, and replacement scanning is never documented, so the 8-anchor stays out of reach. 1 2
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
DATEV XML export including Belege is available from Solo upward, and Pro adds the DATEV Rechnungsdatenservice 1.0, so receipts and invoice data genuinely reach the adviser's DATEV. But it is strictly one-way: no adviser login, no scoped access, no audit of what anyone changed — the adviser works around the system, not in it. 1 2
The Tax Adviser
DATEV XML export of Rechnungen and Belege sits in every plan including Solo, Pro adds a DATEV Rechnungsdatenservice 1.0, and there is a one-click bundled handover to the Steuerberater — more than a CSV dump. But there is no adviser login, no scoped access, no audit of what the Berater touched; my queries would be resolved by email around the system, not inside it. 1 2
The Auditor
DATEV-Export in XML format is available from Solo upward, and Pro offers the DATEV-Rechnungsdatenservice 1.0 — the data reaches the Berater in his format. The evidence shows no read-only or scoped adviser login, nothing coming back (corrections), and no protocol of what a third party changed. 1 2
The Founder
DATEV is real and starts early: DATEV XML export for invoices and Belege already in Solo, the DATEV Rechnungsdatenservice 1.0 on Pro, and a one-click bundled handoff (E1, E2). But it is a one-way pipe — no adviser login, no scoped access, no audit of what the adviser touched, no corrections coming back. 1 2
The Integrator
A documented DATEV XML export of invoices and Belege available from the Solo tier, a bundled one-click handoff, and DATEV Rechnungsdatenservice 1.0 in Pro — that is a real, named-format handoff, but there is no adviser login, no bidirectional corrections, no receipt-image linking evidence and no period handover with locking; the adviser receives data, never works in the system. 1 2
The Skeptic
DATEV XML export of invoices and receipts exists even in Solo, Pro adds the DATEV Rechnungsdatenservice 1.0, and the one-click hand-off to the Steuerberater is real. But there is no adviser login of any kind — no scoped access, no audit of what they changed — so the adviser works around the system, not in it. 1 2
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
German hosting and a German GmbH in the imprint are confirmed, which I judge ahead of the pipeline's "unknown" — but the chain leaks: Intercom (live chat inside the applications), MailChimp and Calendly are US processors with only standard contractual clauses as safeguard. No full subprocessor register, no certification, and nothing on what happens to the ten-year retention obligation when you leave the vendor. 1 3 4
The Tax Adviser
A Frankfurt GmbH running 'in einem Rechenzentrum in Deutschland' with SCCs for third-country transfers is a solid start, but the named chain includes US firms (Intercom Inc., MailChimp) in support tooling, the infrastructure provider is unnamed, and no full subprocessor register is published. Nothing addresses retention surviving contract end — the archive export question I care most about — which is presumably why the pipeline left the critical attributes unconfirmed. 1 3 4
The Auditor
Hosting in Germany, Rechenzentrum in Deutschland, contracting entity FastBill GmbH in Frankfurt — the foundation stands. But Intercom, MailChimp and Calendly are US services (covered only by standard contractual clauses), the datacentre is not named, and no archive export is evidenced that keeps the books auditable for the statutory period after the customer leaves. 1 3 4
The Founder
German hosting as standard and a German contracting entity are confirmed (E1, E3, E4), which is more than the pipeline's unknowns suggest. But the support and marketing chain runs through Intercom Inc and MailChimp in the US — SCCs cited, no more (E4) — the data-centre provider is unnamed, and there is no statement that an exit export keeps my ten-year retention alive after I leave. 1 3 4
The Integrator
Nothing anywhere states an export that keeps statutory retention alive after the customer leaves, which is the specific durability question here. 1 3 4
The Skeptic
German company (HRB AG Frankfurt), German datacenter, and named subprocessors with EU Standard Contractual Clauses for third-country transfers puts this above the floor. But the infrastructure provider is not named, the 'list' is a privacy-policy excerpt that puts Intercom, MailChimp and Calendly (US) in the support chain, and there is not one word about an export that keeps statutory retention alive after the contract ends. 1 3 4
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
All four tiers, user counts, bank-account limits, VAT treatment, billing period and the main add-on prices are public, and DATEV export starts in the cheapest plan — so a small shop can get close to its real invoice. But Premium is only "ab 53 €", add-ons are "ab", no minimum term is stated, and receipt limits with overage beyond the 10 € extra-receipts add-on are not computable. 2
The Tax Adviser
Four tiers with monthly-equivalent prices, annual debit and the 10% annual discount, net-plus-VAT treatment, users by tier with extra seats at 5 €, bank-account limits and priced add-ons are all public. What a business still cannot compute: the document/receipt limits of the lower tiers, what pushes Premium beyond 'ab 53 €', and any minimum term or overage rate. 2
The Auditor
Tiers with monthly equivalents, billing period (annual debit), per-tier user and bank-account limits, priced add-ons and net-price treatment are all public; the annual invoice for Solo through Pro is computable. Premium is only 'ab 53 €' with no stated driver, overage appears as 'ab' prices, and no minimum term is given. 2
The Founder
I can almost compute my annual invoice: four tiers priced with billing period and net-plus-VAT stated, users, bank accounts, API calls and receipt limits per tier, and every add-on priced (users 5 €, extra receipts ab 10 €, dunning ab 4,90 €) (E2). The dings: Premium is only 'ab 53 €' with no stated driver, no minimum term anywhere, and 'ab 10 €' for extra receipts doesn't say what a unit is. 2
The Integrator
All four tiers, the annual-debit billing period, VAT treatment, per-tier limits (users, bank accounts, API calls, 30 receipts, 20 dunning cases) and the add-ons are public, and DATEV export starts in the cheapest tier so nothing commonly needed hides in an unpriced plan; the residual gap is the 'ab' pricing on Premium and the add-ons, which leaves overage volume and minimum term not fully computable. 2
The Skeptic
Tiers, users, bank accounts, add-on prices and net-plus-VAT treatment are public, and DATEV export starts in the cheapest plan — better than most. But Premium is only 'ab 53 € mtl.', receipt overage is 'ab 10 €', no minimum term is stated and there is no price for an extra bank account below the unlimited tiers, so the real annual invoice is not fully computable. 2
European sovereignty — proven facts
3 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 DE | 3/3 pts | 3 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | EU only ⚠ unverified | 3/3 pts | 1 Report an error |
| Subprocessors | US CLOUD Act reach ⚠ unverified | 0/2 pts | 4 Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 15 Sep 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency. The claim sits in homepage marketing copy (echoed on the pricing page and imprint) and no data-processing agreement or named hosting provider is given to confirm it contractually.
- Weak sourcing — Subprocessors. Intercom, Inc. is used only for in-app messages and live chat and its submission to the defunct EU-US Privacy Shield is cited; the policy names no hosting subprocessor for the product itself, and the other US providers (Mailchimp, Typeform, Facebook) serve the marketing website or newsletter.
- 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.
- 14 pricing 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
- 5 subprocessors 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
- 3 product 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 legal 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 (12)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.fastbill.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing www.fastbill.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Imprint www.fastbill.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Privacy policy www.fastbill.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Bookkeeping core — found from sitemap www.fastbill.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Bookkeeping core — found from sitemap www.fastbill.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Tax handling & filings — found from sitemap www.fastbill.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Tax handling & filings — found from sitemap www.fastbill.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Receipts, banking & matching — found from sitemap www.fastbill.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Receipts, banking & matching — found from sitemap www.fastbill.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Tax adviser handoff — found from sitemap www.fastbill.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Tax adviser handoff — found from sitemap www.fastbill.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →