sevDesk

The Bookkeeper

Double-entry is claimed, with trial balance, cashbook and cost centres in the Pro tier — but the evidence never names SKR03/SKR04, journals, opening balances, or a month-end close that locks. That is roughly half of the 5-anchor bundle missing, so I interpolate to 4 rather than take 'einfache und doppelte Buchführung' on faith. 1 2

Report an error

The Tax Adviser

They claim 'einfache und doppelte Buchführung' with cost centres, BWA, cashbook and a trial balance, which is more than a pure EÜR list — but the evidence names no SKR03/SKR04, no manual postings or journals, no opening balances, no period close and no locking. Without a chart of accounts I recognise and a closable period, this is a hybrid that sits between the simplified and the double-entry anchors. 2

Report an error

The Auditor

Double-entry is explicitly offered ('einfache und doppelte Buchführung') with cost centres, BWA, trial balance, depreciation and a cashbook — more than an EÜR list. But the evidence names no chart of accounts, no opening balances, and no period close or locking, so the ledger underneath the screens is only partially evidenced. 2 1

Report an error

The Founder

Real double-entry is confirmed — 'Für einfache und doppelte Buchführung' plus trial balance, cashbook, depreciation, and cost centres/BWA in Pro, which is past the EÜR-only tools. But nothing on SKR03/SKR04, opening balances, journals, or a period close with locking, so I can't credit it beyond the mid anchor. 2 1

Report an error

The Integrator

The evidence claims "einfache und doppelte Buchführung" with cashbook, trial balance, EÜR/GuV and depreciation, and cost centres plus BWA in Buchhaltung Pro — real ledger territory. But nowhere is a chart of accounts (SKR03/SKR04), journals, opening balances or any period close with locking evidenced, which is what separates rubric level 5 from real bookkeeping. 2

Report an error

The Skeptic

"Für einfache und doppelte Buchführung" with cashbook, trial balance, depreciation and EÜR/GuV is more than an EÜR list, but nowhere on the captured pages do SKR03/SKR04, a journal, manual postings, opening balances or a period close appear — the double-entry claim is a marketing line, and the ledger machinery behind it is unevidenced. 1 2

Report an error

The Bookkeeper

Not a single word on GoBD, immutability, retention periods or a Verfahrensdokumentation anywhere in the captures — no GoBD claim, no retention statement, no documentation. That is the 0 anchor by its own definition; a Buchhaltungssoftware marketing page and privacy policy with nothing on audit survival tells me the record may not survive a Betriebsprüfung. 4 1 2

Report an error

The Tax Adviser

Not one word about GoBD, immutability, change history, retention period or a Verfahrensdokumentation anywhere in the evidence — the privacy page offers AVV, TOM and a DPO, but nothing on how postings survive an audit. The anchor for zero is exactly this: no retention statement, no GoBD claim, no documentation. 4 2

Report an error

The Auditor

Nothing: no GoBD claim, no Verfahrensdokumentation, no word on unalterable postings, no change history, and no retention statement anywhere in the captured pages; the AVV and TOM in the privacy policy are GDPR artifacts, not tax-audit documentation. For a Betriebsprüfung this dimension is unevidenced end to end, and silence on immutability is itself information. 4 1 2

Report an error

The Founder

Not one word about GoBD, immutability, a change log, retention periods, or a Verfahrensdokumentation anywhere on the captured homepage, pricing, or privacy pages — the retention-heavy pages came back silent. For a product holding my books through a ten-year audit window, that silence is the score. 4 1 2

Report an error

The Integrator

Total silence: the feature inventories on homepage and pricing page list dozens of capabilities without one word on GoBD, immutability, retention period or a Verfahrensdokumentation. For a 170,000-customer bookkeeping product that absence speaks loudly, and rubric level 0 is exactly that: no GoBD claim, no retention statement, no documentation. 1 2

Report an error

The Skeptic

Total silence: no GoBD claim, no retention period, no Verfahrensdokumentation, no audit-trail description on the homepage, pricing page or privacy policy as captured — at least the empty "GoBD-konform" badge would have been a claim to interrogate; here there is nothing to test, which the anchors score at the bottom. 4 1 2

Report an error

The Bookkeeper

UStVA goes straight to ELSTER without an extra certificate, and EÜR, GuV and depreciation are in the plan — that is the core of the 5 anchor. But reverse-charge, intra-community supply, OSS, ZM, §19 and Dauerfristverlängerung are all unevidenced, so it earns 5 clean and nothing toward 8. 1 2

Report an error

The Tax Adviser

UStVA goes directly to ELSTER without an extra certificate, EÜR and GuV are produced, and the dashboard tracks the Umsatzsteuerzahllast — that is the backbone of the anchor. But reverse-charge, intra-community supply, OSS, Dauerfristverlängerung and correction filings are entirely absent from the evidence, so I cannot place it at five, let alone eight. 1 2

Report an error

The Auditor

The UStVA goes electronically to ELSTER without an extra certificate and EÜR/GuV are produced, which clears electronic submission. But reverse-charge, intra-community supply, OSS, §19 and Dauerfristverlängerung are all silent — the routine filing is there, the special cases are not. 1 2

Report an error

The Founder

UStVA goes to ELSTER directly and without an extra certificate, and EÜR/GuV are in the plan — that's the Sunday-evening VAT return I actually want. But reverse-charge and intra-community handling are unmentioned, and nothing on OSS, §19, or Dauerfristverlängerung, so it sits a notch under the full anchor. 1 2

Report an error

The Integrator

UStVA goes directly to the Finanzamt through an integrated ELSTER interface with no extra certificate, and EÜR plus GuV are listed — the core of rubric level 5 is there. But reverse-charge, intra-community supply, OSS, Zusammenfassende Meldung and correction filings appear nowhere, so I can't go above the middle. 1 2

Report an error

The Skeptic

UStVA submitted to ELSTER without an extra certificate, EÜR and GuV produced, EN 16931-validated e-invoices — two-thirds of rubric level 5 — but reverse-charge and intra-community handling, OSS, ZM and §19 are all unmentioned; "international invoices" is an invoicing feature, not VAT logic. 1 2

Report an error

The Bookkeeper

Over 4,000 banks connected, receipts scanned with AI category recommendation, and e-invoices both directions in ZUGFeRD/XRechnung with EN 16931 validation in every plan — that lifts it well above 5. But no rule-based matching engine with learning is described, and ersetzendes Scannen plus compliant archiving of the digital original are undocumented, so the evidence chain is not closed enough for 8. 1 2

Report an error

The Tax Adviser

Online banking across 4,000 banks, app-based receipt scanning with AI category recommendation, and e-invoices in ZUGFeRD/XRechnung both directions with EN 16931 validation — that earns the mid anchor. What is missing is everything the eighth anchor demands: rule-based matching with learning, one-click posting-to-receipt chain, and any documented ersetzendes Scannen so my clients may legally burn the paper. 1 2

Report an error

The Auditor

Feeds across 4,000 banks, app and drag-and-drop receipt capture with AI categorisation, and ZUGFeRD/XRechnung in both directions with EN 16931 validation — solidly above the feed-and-OCR anchor. No rule-based matching with learning, no stated receipt-to-posting linkage in one click, and nothing on ersetzendes Scannen or compliant archiving of the digital original. 1 2

Report an error

The Founder

Feeds from 4,000+ banks, receipt scanning with AI category recommendations, and e-invoices both directions (ZUGFeRD/XRechnung, EN 16931-validated) cover most of my weekly grind. Missing: rule-based matching with learning, replacement scanning documentation, and compliant archiving of the digital original — so exceptions may still be my problem. 1 2

Report an error

The Integrator

Over 4,000 banks connected with transfers straight out of the app, AI receipt capture with automatic category recommendation, and e-invoicing in ZUGFeRD/XRechnung both directions in every plan — the pipe from money and evidence into the books is genuinely built. What's missing is the reconciliation half: no rule-based automatic matching with learning, no ersetzendes Scannen, no archiving of the digital original. 1 2

Report an error

The Skeptic

Feeds for 4,000+ banks, app-based receipt scanning with AI category recommendation, and ZUGFeRD/XRechnung created, sent and received both directions — solidly past rubric level 5 — but no rule-based matching with learning, no documented ersetzendes Scannen, and no claim that every posting reaches its receipt in one click. 1 2

Report an error

The Bookkeeper

A DATEV/ADDISON interface to the Steuerberatung plus inviting him to work in the account is precisely the 5 anchor. Whether receipt images travel with the DATEV export with correct linking, and whether the adviser's access is scoped and audited, the evidence says nothing — so not a step further. 1 2

Report an error

The Tax Adviser

A DATEV/ADDISON interface exists and the adviser can be invited into the account rather than emailed a PDF pile — the two legs of anchor five, though nothing says the DATEV export carries receipt images or that my access is read-only. Every plan ships with exactly one user and no adviser seat is priced, and there is no audit of what the adviser touched, so anchor eight is out of reach. 1 2

Report an error

The Auditor

Named DATEV and ADDISON interfaces to the Steuerberatung plus an in-account collaboration invite meet the export-and-adviser-login anchor. The evidence says nothing on whether receipt images ride along in the export, on scoped access with an audit of what the adviser changed, or on corrections coming back bidirectionally. 1 2

Report an error

The Founder

A named DATEV and ADDISON interface, plus the option to invite the Steuerberater into the account to work rather than just receive files — that's genuinely useful. Whether receipt images travel correctly linked, and whether his access is scoped or audited, is unproven, so it stays under the 8. 2 1

Report an error

The Integrator

DATEV and ADDISON interfaces are named, assigned to a concrete paid tier and framed as "Verknüpfung zu deiner Steuerberatung", and the adviser can be invited into the account to work — that meets rubric level 5. But the export's contents (receipt images, linking) are undocumented, the adviser seat is unscoped and unaudited, and corrections flowing back is pure speculation on this evidence. 1 2

Report an error

The Skeptic

A DATEV/ADDISON interface included in the paid Rechnung plan plus inviting the Steuerberater "zur Mitarbeit" into the account is exactly rubric level 5 — but nothing on receipt images in the export, on scoped or audited adviser access, or on corrections flowing back; the tier where DATEV begins is at least answerable from the evidence. 1 2

Report an error

The Bookkeeper

The imprint shows a German GmbH under Amtsgericht Freiburg and the privacy policy names a German server location with a Subunternehmer section — the pipeline's 0 rests on 'unknowns' that its own captured pages disprove. Still no named infrastructure, no certification, and above all no exit export that keeps the ten-year retention alive after leaving the vendor, which caps it below 8. 3 4

Report an error

The Tax Adviser

A German GmbH registered at Amtsgericht Freiburg, a deliberate server location in Germany, plus a published subprocessor section, AVV and TOM — solidly above the mid anchor, and I note the pipeline flagged half these attributes unknown despite the imprint. It stays below eight because the infrastructure is not named, the subprocessor list's completeness is unverifiable from the evidence, and there is no stated export that satisfies ten-year retention when the customer walks away. 3 4

Report an error

The Auditor

German contracting entity (sevDesk GmbH, Amtsgericht Freiburg, German VAT ID), a deliberate German server location and a subprocessor section exists. But the infrastructure is unnamed, the subprocessor list's completeness is unconfirmed, and there is no stated export that would satisfy statutory retention if the contract ends — with a ten-year obligation, that gap matters most. 3 4

Report an error

The Founder

German GmbH in Offenburg, German register court and VAT ID, 'Serverstandort Deutschland', plus a published AVV, TOM and Subunternehmer section — the bones of a sovereign setup. But infrastructure isn't named, the AI capture/Sevi chain is unexplained, and there's no stated export keeping me compliant on retention if I leave, so the pipeline's 'unknown' flags still bite. 3 4

Report an error

The Integrator

The vendor's own pages state German server location, the imprint confirms a German GmbH under Amtsgericht Freiburg, and the privacy page publishes a subprocessor list, AVV and TOM — rubric level 5 territory. But nothing is independently verified (the pipeline flags every attribute unknown), the infrastructure is unnamed, and there is no stated export that keeps statutory retention alive if the contract ends. 3 4

Report an error

The Skeptic

The imprint settles what the pipeline flagged unknown: sevDesk GmbH at Amtsgericht Freiburg, and the privacy policy names Serverstandort Deutschland with AVV, TOM and a DPO contact — an EU entity on German hosting. But the "Subunternehmer" heading reveals no captured list, the AI chain (KI-Belegerfassung, the Sevi agent) runs somewhere unstated, and there is not one word on whether statutory retention survives leaving the vendor. 3 4

Report an error

The Bookkeeper

Billing periods (1/12/24 months), one user per plan, plan contents and the tier where DATEV begins are public — more than a headline price. But the captured figures stop at 'Preis pro Monat ab*' plus a 'bis zu 70%' promo: no euro amounts in evidence, no price for additional users or the adviser seat, and partner marketplace costs explicitly excluded — so the real annual invoice is not computable from this sheet. 1 2

Report an error

The Tax Adviser

Billing periods of 1/12/24 months, a permanent free tier with its three-invoice limit, a user count of one per plan, and the DATEV interface visible in the paid Rechnung plan — the skeleton of a computable invoice is there. But the evidence carries no euro figures for the paid tiers, no adviser seat or extra user price, marketplace partner costs explicitly excluded, and a 'bis zu 70%' promo that makes the real annual invoice a guessing game. 1 2

Report an error

The Auditor

Tier structure is public: 1/12/24-month terms, one user per plan, the free tier's 3-invoice limit, unlimited invoices in paid plans and DATEV named in the invoice plan. Adviser seat pricing, VAT treatment and marketplace partner costs ('nicht inkludiert') are unstated, and the 24-month 'ab*' comparison prices plus a 70% promo make the real annual invoice harder to compute. 2 1

Report an error

The Founder

I got tier structures, billing periods, and limits (3 invoices free, 1 user per plan), but not a single euro figure for the paid tiers in the captured pages, no VAT treatment, no price for extra users or adviser access — and 'Preis pro Monat ab*' only holds for 24-month terms with a 70% teaser on top. That's exactly the headline-that-isn't-the-invoice game I hate, and marketplace partner costs are 'not inkludiert'. 2 1

Report an error

The Integrator

Structure is public: 1/12/24-month terms with "ab" prices valid only for 24-month terms, an explicit free tier with a 3-invoice limit, and the DATEV tier identifiable. But a business still can't compute its real invoice: one user per plan with no extra-seat or adviser price, marketplace partner costs explicitly "nicht inkludiert", discount promos of "bis zu 70%" muddying the headline, and no euro figures or VAT treatment captured at all. 1 2

Report an error

The Skeptic

Billing periods (1/12/24 months), the 3-invoice free limit, unlimited invoices in paid plans, one user per plan and the DATEV tier are all public — better than most — but every euro amount hides behind "ab*" valid only for 24-month terms, and extra users, extra bank accounts, adviser seats and VAT treatment carry no price anywhere on the captured pages. 1 2

Report an error