Accounting
Visma eEkonomi
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Visma Spcs AB (Visma) · www.visma.se
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Link to this page
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.
Visma eEkonomi at a glance
- Vendor
- Visma Spcs AB (Visma)
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Visma eEkonomi 0/5, the mean of 6 judges. Visma eEkonomi lands at the bottom of this bench. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 20 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 21 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Visma eEkonomi lands at the bottom of this bench. What was captured is the Visma group's corporate homepage and a legal notice — pages that state the site "is not used to offer software products or services directly to end users" — and no product page appears in the material. Bookkeeping core, tax and filings, documents and banking, and adviser handoff each span 0 to 1, with only the Founder scoring above zero, crediting a point "only because this is sold as accounting software." GoBD compliance tops out at 0, and no price appears anywhere captured. Sovereignty is both the relative strength and the genuine split: scores run 0 to 2. Judges above zero point to the captured terms naming site operator Visma Software International AS of Oslo, with disputes under Norwegian law before the Oslo courts — the Auditor noting Norway's EEA status — while the zeros rest on hosting location, data residency, subprocessors and retention after contract end remaining unknown. The judges' overall totals span 0.0 to 0.9.
Speaks for it
- Registration details published in full: organization number 980 858 073 in the Brønnøysund Register Centre, plus named representatives
- Group scale stated on the captured homepage: 2.7M customers and 150+ companies
- Sovereignty's maximum of 2 is the highest score recorded on any criterion
- Dispute terms are explicit and dated: Norwegian law, Oslo courts, last updated 28.05.2026
Held against it
- GoBD compliance tops out at 0, with no captured statement on posting immutability, statutory retention or a Verfahrensdokumentation
- Bookkeeping core, tax and filings, documents and banking and adviser handoff span 0 to 1, with rationales citing no public information on ledgers, ELSTER filings, bank feeds or DATEV export
- The captured pages are corporate material, with the legal notice stating the site is not used to offer software products or services directly to end users
- We found no public information on hosting location, ownership, data residency or subprocessors
- No price, tier, billing period or limit appears in what was captured
Best for
- You are screening accounting vendors at group level and want published scale and registration — the homepage states 2.7M customers and 150+ companies, and the legal notice gives full registration detail
- You will demand all product specifics directly from the vendor, and want the group's registered identity and dispute terms on record before that conversation
- You accept an EEA-based operator under Norwegian law — sovereignty is the only criterion whose maximum (2) rises above 1
Avoid if
- You need documented German bookkeeping — a ledger, VAT and ELSTER filings, and a DATEV handoff to your Steuerberater — before you sign; those criteria span 0 to 1, and the captures are corporate pages
- You must hand a Betriebsprüfer GoBD-relevant documentation; GoBD compliance tops out at 0
- You require disputes to sit under an EU member state's law and courts; the captured terms specify Norwegian law before the courts of Oslo
- You expect to evaluate and buy from the vendor's public website alone; the legal notice states the site is not used to offer software products or services directly to end users
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Bookkeeping core | 0 of 5 |
| GoBD, immutability & audit | 0 of 5 |
| Tax handling & filings | 0 of 5 |
| Receipts, banking & matching | 0 of 5 |
| Tax adviser handoff | 0 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 0.5 of 5 |
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
The captured pages give me nothing to post or lock: only group marketing claims about 2.7M customers and growth appear, and we found no public information on double-entry, a chart of accounts, journals, opening balances or a period close. 1 2
The Tax Adviser
The captured pages are a group corporate site — the legal notice itself states it "is not used to offer software products or services directly to end users" — and we found no public information on double-entry, a chart of accounts such as SKR03/SKR04, journals, opening balances or a period close. There is no ledger described here for me to evaluate, which lands at the lowest definition. 1 2
The Auditor
I came asking for the ledger and received corporate messaging only — customer counts, growth talk, and AI-and-security slogans. We found no public information on double-entry bookkeeping, a chart of accounts, journals, opening balances or period closing, so not even simplified bookkeeping is evidenced. 1 2
The Founder
The captured pages stay at corporate marketing level — customer counts, companies, an AI-and-security tagline — and we found no public information on double-entry, SKR03/SKR04, journals, opening balances or period close. The legal notice even states the group website is not used to offer software products directly to end users, so the ledger underneath is entirely unevidenced; I give a point only because this is sold as accounting software. 1 2
The Integrator
The captured material covers a corporate homepage and a legal notice, and we found no public information on double-entry bookkeeping, a chart of accounts, journals, opening balances or period closing. Without evidence of a ledger underneath, there is nothing shown that a shop, payment provider or payroll could even be connected to. 1 2
The Skeptic
What was captured is corporate brochure copy — 2.7 million customers, "growth that lasts" — and not a word about double-entry, SKR03/SKR04, manual postings, journals or a period close. We found no public information on the ledger underneath the product, so the honest score is the lowest one. 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
We found no public information on unalterable postings, a change log, statutory retention or a Verfahrensdokumentation, and no GoBD claim appears in the captured pages — nothing here evidences that a record would survive a tax audit. 1 2
The Tax Adviser
We found no public information on a GoBD claim, posting immutability, a change log, statutory retention or a Verfahrensdokumentation; nothing captured speaks to a record surviving a Betriebsprüfung. Silence on every element an audit needs puts this at the floor. 1 2
The Auditor
For a Betriebsprüfung I need postings that cannot be altered after the fact, corrections booked as reversals, a change history and retention across the statutory period; we found no public information on any of these, nor even a GoBD assertion or a Verfahrensdokumentation. The captured pages remain at group level and never touch the product. 1 2
The Founder
We found no public information on immutability of postings, a change log, statutory retention, a Verfahrensdokumentation, or any GoBD conformity statement — the pages speak of security only in general terms. For a German audit, what was captured gives me nothing to hand a Betriebsprüfer. 1
The Integrator
We found no public information on unalterable postings, a change history, statutory retention or a Verfahrensdokumentation, and nothing captured even asserts GoBD conformity. The pages say nothing about how a posting would survive a tax audit. 1 2
The Skeptic
I have seen "GoBD-konform" printed on pages that offer nothing behind it; here even the claim itself is absent — no audit trail, no retention statement, no Verfahrensdokumentation offered in anything captured. We found no public information on whether postings can be altered after close or how long records are kept. 1 2
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 captured pages say nothing about VAT logic, UStVA, ELSTER, EÜR or balance-sheet preparation; we found no public information on any filing capability for this product. 1 2
The Tax Adviser
We found no public information on VAT logic, UStVA preparation, ELSTER submission, EÜR or a balance sheet; the captured text speaks of "AI innovation combined with security" and 2.7 million customers, not of filings. I have nothing on which to build a client's filing year. 1 2
The Auditor
We found no public information on VAT logic, UStVA, ELSTER submission, EÜR or balance sheet output, let alone OSS or reverse-charge handling. Without a single filing described, I can credit nothing here. 1 2
The Founder
We found no public information on VAT logic, UStVA preparation, ELSTER submission, EÜR, OSS or reverse-charge handling; the homepage evidence covers growth focus and AI, nothing about filings. As the person who just wants the VAT return submitted without learning ELSTER, I cannot see from public capture whether any of that exists. 1
The Integrator
We found no public information on VAT logic, UStVA, ELSTER, EÜR or any other filing; not even a VAT rate appears in what was captured. Nothing in the public material lets a German filing year be evidenced. 1 2
The Skeptic
We found no public information on VAT logic, UStVA, ELSTER, EÜR, Bilanz or OSS in the captured pages. Not even the hand-copy stage — a VAT figure to read off — is evidenced, so the lowest level applies. 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
We found no public information on bank feeds, receipt capture, OCR or matching; nothing in the captures describes how evidence or money reaches the ledger, so the exception count after automation cannot even be discussed on public evidence. 1 2
The Tax Adviser
We found no public information on bank feeds, receipt capture, OCR or matching; how evidence and money reach the ledger is simply not described on the captured pages. That is the bottom definition by default. 1 2
The Auditor
We found no public information on bank feeds, receipt capture, OCR or matching rules, and I cannot confirm from the captured pages that receipts are stored at all. The chain from evidence to posting is entirely undocumented in what I was given. 1
The Founder
We found no public information on bank feeds, bank statement import, receipt capture, OCR or matching rules — the matched bank feed I pay for is invisible in the evidence. Nothing captured shows how money or receipts reach the ledger. 1
The Integrator
Bank feeds, receipt capture, OCR and matching rules are where a bookkeeping system meets the real world, and we found no public information on any of them. We likewise found no public information on e-invoicing in either direction, ZUGFeRD or XRechnung included. 1 2
The Skeptic
No bank feed, receipt capture, OCR or matching rule appears in anything captured; the pages describe the group, not how money and receipts reach the ledger. We found no public information on bank connections, receipt storage or the legal sufficiency of the digital receipt. 1
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
Nothing captured mentions DATEV, an accounting export or adviser access; we found no public information on how the books would reach a Steuerberater. 1 2
The Tax Adviser
We found no public information on a DATEV export, an export in any named accounting format, or adviser access of any kind — I cannot see how the books would reach a Steuerberater at all. The captured pages concern the group, not the product. 1 2
The Auditor
We found no public information on a DATEV export, any other named adviser format, or an adviser login. Whether the books reach the Steuerberater as data or as a pile of PDFs is not documented on the captured pages. 1 2
The Founder
We found no public information on DATEV export, any other adviser format, or adviser access of any kind. From what was captured, the year-end handover to my Steuerberater is a closed box. 1 2
The Integrator
We found no public information on DATEV export, adviser access or any named export format, so how a Steuerberater would receive the books is entirely undocumented in the captures. No documented interface or API for advisers appears in the public material. 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
The contracting entity is Visma Software International AS in Oslo, with disputes governed by Norwegian law before the courts of Oslo, and we found no public information on hosting location, subprocessors, certification or any export that would preserve statutory retention after leaving the vendor. 2
The Tax Adviser
The legal notice names Visma Software International AS of Oslo as the operator, with Norwegian law and Oslo courts governing disputes — a contracting entity outside the EU — while hosting, data residency, ownership and every subprocessor remain unstated on the captured pages. With no statement on retention or export after the contract ends, I cannot tell a client where their books could be compelled from, or whether they survive the vendor relationship. 2
The Auditor
The contracting entity sits in Oslo under Norwegian law with Oslo courts — outside the EU, though within the EEA — and we found no public information on hosting location, on a subprocessor list, or on an export that would keep statutory retention alive if the customer leaves. Every failing of the bottom of the scale is present, softened only marginally by Norway's EEA status. 2
The Founder
The only legal terms captured place the site operator in Oslo under Norwegian law with the courts of Oslo, and the entity actually contracting for the product is not confirmed on the captured pages. Hosting location, subprocessors and any archive export that would keep my retention duty alive after leaving are all unstated, which as a German buyer leaves my books under a non-EU jurisdiction I can't verify. 2 1
The Integrator
The contracting party is Visma Software International AS in Norway, with B2B disputes governed by Norwegian law before the courts of Oslo, and we found no public information on hosting location, named infrastructure or a single subprocessor. We also found no public statement on how statutory retention would be satisfied after the contract ends. 2
The Skeptic
The captured legal notice names a Norwegian operator under Norwegian law and Oslo jurisdiction, while hosting location, data residency and every subprocessor remain unstated on the public pages. With the books' location unknown and nothing published on retention surviving a contract end, the ten-year retention question is unanswerable from what is published. 2
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
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 captured legal notice states the site "is not used to offer software products or services directly to end users", and we found no public prices, tier limits, billing terms or add-on pricing — the real annual invoice is not computable from the captured pages. 1 2
The Tax Adviser
We found no public prices at all: the legal notice states the captured website "is not used to offer software products or services directly to end users", and no tier, limit, billing period or add-on price appears in what was captured. A business cannot compute any part of its annual invoice from this. 1 2
The Auditor
No price appears on the captured pages; the legal notice describes the corporate website as not used to offer software products directly to end users, and we found no public information on tier prices, booking or document limits, or adviser access. A real annual invoice cannot be computed from anything published here. 1 2
The Founder
No price of any kind appears in what was captured — no tiers, no booking or user limits, no billing period, no word on where things like adviser access would sit. The corporate legal notice says the website is not used to offer products directly to end users, and we found no public information on what this product costs, so I cannot compute even a rough annual invoice. 1 2
The Integrator
We found no public prices, tiers, billing periods, limits or add-ons anywhere in the captures, and the corporate site itself states it is not used to offer software products directly to end users. No part of an annual invoice can be computed from public information. 1 2
The Skeptic
There is no price, tier, billing period, booking limit or bank-account surcharge anywhere in the captures; the corporate site states it "is not used to offer software products or services directly to end users". We found no public information on pricing, so a business cannot compute any part of its annual invoice from these pages. 1 2
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 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 | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited 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 |
Questions about Visma eEkonomi
Is Visma eEkonomi European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Visma eEkonomi is based.
Where does Visma eEkonomi store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
Does Visma eEkonomi have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Visma eEkonomi?
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: Visma eEkonomi alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 20 Oct 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. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- 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.
- We found no public information on pricing on the pages we read (visma.se, visma.com/legal-notice). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- We found no public information on compliance on the pages we read (visma.se, visma.com/legal-notice). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- 3 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
- 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
- 1 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
Sources (2)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.visma.se Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Legal notice — found from the homepage www.visma.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →