Contract Management (CLM)
Trackado
Provenance unknown Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 1 of 6 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Trackado AB · www.trackado.com
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.
Trackado at a glance
- Vendor
- Trackado AB
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
- Data hosting
- Default not stated; pages mention the EU source, captured 3 Nov 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Trackado 2.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Trackado is a Swedish contract-management SaaS whose evidence is strongest on European footing and on moving data in and out, and thinnest on creating contract text. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 3 Nov 2026; evaluated by the panel 4 Nov 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Trackado is a Swedish contract-management SaaS whose evidence is strongest on European footing and on moving data in and out, and thinnest on creating contract text. Sovereignty scores run 6 to 7: Trackado AB contracts under Swedish law, supervised by the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection, hosting is stated as Microsoft Azure in Western European data centres, and a published data processing agreement carries Standard Contractual Clauses, yearly audit rights and a 10-day subprocessor objection window, though the subprocessor list is sent on request rather than published. Integration and exit scores run 5 to 6 on a documented API, Excel and PDF export, and e-signing with EU data residency in the Netherlands; repository and obligations scored a flat 4 for reminders, value tracking and business-unit scoping. Authoring and templates scores run 1 to 2, negotiation and approval 3 to 4, and AI extraction control was reported unevidenced. The judges did not meaningfully split — scores span a single point at most — though the captured pages give different answers on data location, and no public price figures appear.
Speaks for it
- Trackado AB is a Swedish entity under Swedish law with the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection as supervisor, hosting stated on Microsoft Azure in Western European data centres with Microsoft Ireland Operations Ltd named as the hosting subprocessor.
- A published data processing agreement carries Standard Contractual Clauses, yearly audit rights and a 10-day subprocessor objection right.
- The contract repository is documented with automatic reminders of important dates and milestones, billing and value tracking, and business-unit access restriction.
- Internal approvals are configurable, with manual or templated steps, Anyone and Everyone approval modes, participant notification and contract linking.
- A documented API retrieves, adds and updates records, and a free trial runs without a credit card.
Held against it
- We found no public information on contract templates with variables, an approved clause library or self-service drafting — the only templates documented configure approval workflows.
- We found no public information on AI extraction or AI review, with no model provider, processing location, training stance or human-review step on any captured page.
- We found no public information on redlining, version comparison, counterparty collaboration, or approval routing by value or risk.
- The subprocessor list is sent on request rather than published, and we found no public information on ISO 27001 or BSI C5 certification.
- We found no public information that export includes versions, approvals and the audit trail, or that notice periods and obligations are captured with named owners.
Best for
- You need a central contract repository with automatic reminders of important dates and milestones, billing and value tracking, and hosting stated as within the EU.
- You want configurable internal approvals — manual or templated steps, Anyone or Everyone modes, business-unit scoping — linked to each contract.
- You need a documented API to retrieve, add and update records, with Excel and PDF export as the documented exit path.
- Your procurement requires a Swedish contracting entity, EU-region hosting on Microsoft Azure, and a published data processing agreement with SCCs and yearly audit rights.
Avoid if
- You need self-service contract generation from templates with variables or an approved clause library — the only templates documented configure approval workflows, not contract text.
- You need counterparty redlining, version comparison or approval routing by value — the documented approvals are internal, and we found no public information on these.
- You rely on a warranted uptime commitment — the terms provide the service "as is" and warrant no specific uptime or availability.
- You evaluate vendors on a standing, published subprocessor list — Trackado maintains one and sends it on request.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Drafting, templates & clause library | 1 of 5 |
| Negotiation, redlining & approval | 2 of 5 |
| Repository, deadlines & obligations | 2 of 5 |
| Integrations, signature & exit | 3 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 3.5 of 5 |
Negotiation, redlining & approval
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Getting from draft to agreed text with a counterparty and through internal sign-off: redlining in Word and in the browser, external collaboration, version comparison, approval workflows, and a record of who approved which version.
0 — No negotiation or approval; the product starts once a contract is signed.
3 — Comments and a version list on a contract, and an internal approval step.
5 — Editing with tracked changes or version comparison, counterparty collaboration in the browser, and configurable approval steps by contract type or value.
8 — A Word add-in or round-trip that keeps changes, counterparty access without a licence, conditional approval routing (value, deviation from playbook, risk), parallel and sequential approvers with delegation, an audit trail of every change and approval per version, and internal comments kept separate from what the counterparty sees.
10 — Negotiation is an auditable record: every concession traceable to who proposed and who approved it, approval rules an auditor or the board can read, negotiation duration reported per contract type, and the full history exportable with the signed version.
The General Counsel
Internal approval is real and configurable: steps can be set individually or from templates, with all-must-approve or first-approval-completes modes, participant notification and an in-progress status — a step up from a flat approval. But we found no public information on redlining, version comparison, counterparty negotiation in the browser, or a record of who approved which version; the only editing evidence is the licence to draft, comment, revise and sign content. 2 6 7 8
The Procurement Analyst
The help pages document configurable approval steps set up manually or from templates, with Anyone and Everyone approval modes, participant notifications and linking of the workflow to a contract, and the terms name commenting and revising as content activities. I found no public information on tracked changes, version comparison, or counterparty collaboration in the browser, which keeps this below the middle anchor. 2 6 7 8
The Sales Ops Owner
Internal approval is genuinely configurable: workflow steps with templates, anyone or everyone approval modes, participant notifications and business-unit scoping, with comment and revise on content in the terms. But I found no public information on redlining or version comparison, counterparty collaboration, or approval routing by value or discount — the routing my deals need. 2 7 8
The IT Integrator
Internal approval is real and configurable: steps set manually or from templates, anyone-or-everyone approval modes, participants notified as each step progresses, and business units used to scope who sees which contracts. I found no public information on redlining, version comparison or counterparty collaboration — the terms only list 'comment' and 'revise' as content activities. 2 7 8
The Data Protection Officer
The terms name commenting and revision of content, and the documented workflow engine provides configurable approval steps with Anyone and Everyone modes, participant notification and reusable templates, plus signing. We found no public information on redlining with tracked changes, version comparison, counterparty access or approval routing by value or risk. 2 7 8
The Skeptic
Approval workflows with configurable steps, reusable templates, anyone-or-everyone approval modes, participant notification and contract linking are documented, alongside commenting and revising content in the terms. We found no public information on tracked changes or a Word round-trip, version comparison, counterparty access, or a record of who approved which version — the things that make negotiation auditable. 2 7 8
Repository, deadlines & obligations
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Knowing what has been signed and what it requires: a searchable repository with metadata, notice periods (Kündigungsfristen) and renewal dates captured and reminded, obligations tracked to an owner, access rights by department, and reporting on the portfolio.
0 — Not a contract repository; signed contracts are not kept in the product.
3 — A central contract store with metadata fields, search, and a reminder on the end date.
5 — Notice periods, renewal terms and end dates captured per contract with reminders to the responsible person, search across contracts and their metadata, and access rights per department, team or user.
8 — Reminders with escalation to named owners, full-text search including scanned contracts (OCR), obligations and milestones tracked with owners and status, contract hierarchies (framework, amendments, orders) linked, reminders logged so a missed deadline can be traced, and portfolio reports on renewals, value and counterparties.
10 — The repository is a system of record a company can be audited on: every deadline derived from a cited clause, reminders and their acknowledgements logged, retention and deletion rules per contract type, and a portfolio view a CFO can use for commitments and cancellations.
The General Counsel
Automatic reminders of important dates and contract milestones, tracking of billing details and the value of supplier and customer contracts, access restricted through business units, and export of contracts, billing transactions, events and business partners to Excel and PDF are documented. We found no public information on notice periods captured per contract, obligations tracked to a named owner, escalation of missed reminders, or portfolio reporting on renewals and counterparties. 1 8 12
The Procurement Analyst
A contract repository is documented with automatic reminders of important dates and contract milestones, tracking of what supplier contracts cost and customer contracts bring in, and business units that "control and restrict user access to contracts within your subscription". I found no public information on notice periods being captured and modelled per contract, reminders escalating to a named owner, obligations tracked with owners, or portfolio reports on renewals and cancellations — exactly what I need to say each quarter what can be cancelled. 1 8 12
The Sales Ops Owner
There is a contract repository with automatic reminders of important dates and milestones, tracking of billing details and contract value, and business units that restrict user access to contracts. We found no public information on notice periods or renewal terms captured per contract, obligations with owners, full-text or OCR search, or portfolio reporting on renewals and counterparties. 1 8 9 10
The IT Integrator
A central repository with metadata is evidenced by exports covering contracts, billing transactions, events and business partners, automatic reminders of important dates and contract milestones, value tracking on supplier and customer contracts, and business units restricting contract access. I found no public information on notice-period capture, obligations tracked to owners, full-text search of scanned documents, or logged reminder acknowledgements. 1 8 12
The Data Protection Officer
A contract repository is documented with automatic reminders of important dates and milestones, tracking of billing details and the value of supplier and customer contracts, and Excel/PDF export of contracts, billing transactions, events and business partners. Contracts can be restricted by business unit such as divisions or legal entities. We found no public information on notice periods (Kündigungsfristen) captured per contract, reminder escalation, full-text search of scanned contracts, or obligations tracked to named owners. 1 8 12
The Skeptic
A repository with automatic reminders on important dates and milestones, billing and value tracking per contract, business partners and events as record types, and access restricted by business unit is documented. We found no public information on notice periods captured separately from end dates, reminders routed to a named owner, full-text search including scans, or obligations tracked with owners — and an end-date reminder alone is precisely the tool that misses an expired notice window. 1 8 12
AI extraction & review transparency
n/r
n/r
n/r
n/r
n/r
n/r
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether the AI that extracts dates and clauses or reviews a draft is disclosed, verifiable and controllable: named model provider and processing location, no training on customer contracts, extracted values shown with their source passage, and features the customer can switch off. A product without AI features is judged on stating so.
0 — The vendor states that customer contracts train its models with no opt-out, or that AI-extracted values are applied without any human check.
3 — AI extraction or review described with what it extracts (dates, parties, clauses), and a general statement on how contract data is handled.
5 — Extracted values presented for a human to review and confirm, a statement that customer contracts are not used for training, and either the model provider or the AI processing location named.
8 — Model provider named as a subprocessor, AI processing available within the EU, extracted values linked to their source passage, AI features that can be disabled per account, each feature documented with its purpose and inputs, accuracy or confidence shown per field, review results traceable to the playbook rule that triggered them, and an EU AI Act position published.
10 — AI is an accountable assistant: customer choice of model or EU-only processing, no retention of contract text by the model provider stated contractually, every AI-suggested value logged with who confirmed or corrected it, and AI off by default until the customer enables it.
The General Counsel not rated — no public information
We found no public information on AI extraction or AI review of contracts — nothing on a model provider, processing location, source passages for extracted values, or any switch-off — and no statement that the product works without AI. The captured homepage, terms, privacy policy, data processing agreement and security pages describe hosting, security and processing terms only. 1 2 3 4 5
The Procurement Analyst not rated — no public information
We found no public information on AI extraction or AI review of contracts: neither the homepage, terms, privacy policy, data processing agreement nor security page names a model provider, processing location, training practice or opt-out for AI features, nor states that the product works without them. This criterion is reported as unevidenced rather than scored. 1 2 3 4 5
The Sales Ops Owner not rated — no public information
We found no public information on AI extraction or AI review: the captured homepage, terms, privacy notice, data processing agreement and security page describe no model, provider or review flow for extracted values, and the subprocessors named in the data processing agreement are hosting, payment and e-signing providers. I cannot judge a capability that is not described. 1 2 3 4 5
The IT Integrator not rated — no public information
We found no public information on AI extraction or AI review: no model provider, processing location, training stance or human-review step appears on any of the captured pages. 1 3 4 5 9 10
The Data Protection Officer not rated — no public information
We found no public information on AI extraction or review: no model provider is named for contract text, no statement on training with customer contracts, and no AI or OCR provider among the disclosed subprocessors. The data processing agreement's subprocessor entries cover Microsoft Ireland for hosting, Stripe for payments and a SignRequest signing service being deprecated, so a buyer cannot determine from public pages who, if anyone, receives contract text for automated processing. The homepage, privacy policy, data processing agreement and security page were all read without an answer. 1 3 4 5
The Skeptic not rated — no public information
We found no public information on AI extraction or AI review: model provider, processing location, training practices, human confirmation of extracted values and any accuracy statement appear on none of the captured homepage, terms, privacy policy, data processing agreement or security page, so this is reported as unevidenced. 1 2 3 4 5
Integrations, signature & exit
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How contracts connect to the rest of the company and leave it again: CRM, procurement and ERP integration, e-signature (and which eIDAS level: simple, advanced or qualified), SSO, an API, and a documented export of documents together with their metadata, versions and audit trail.
0 — A closed tool with no integrations, no API and no export.
3 — A few named integrations (storage, CRM or e-signature) and a download of contract files.
5 — Integrations with named CRM, storage or office tools, e-signature integrated with the provider or eIDAS level named, and a documented API or an export of contracts with their metadata.
8 — Maintained integrations with systems common in DACH (SAP, Microsoft 365, Salesforce, DATEV-connected or procurement tools), qualified electronic signature available, SSO and SCIM, webhooks, and an export that includes versions, approvals and audit trail in an open format.
10 — Exit is designed in: a versioned API with a deprecation policy, a documented migration path in and out with the format stated, deletion after contract end confirmed, and the full repository — files, metadata, obligations and history — handed back without a professional-services fee.
The General Counsel
A documented API (retrieve, add, update), e-signing within the service with a signing provider under EU data residency named in the agreement, document links to Dropbox, SharePoint and OneDrive, and Excel/PDF export of contracts with their data give a workable baseline. We found no public information on an eIDAS signature level, CRM or ERP integrations, webhooks, or an export that carries versions, approvals and the audit trail. 2 4 8 11 12
The Procurement Analyst
A documented API lets a customer "retrieve, add and update information", export comes as Excel and PDF for contracts, billing transactions, events, business partners and attachments, e-signing services are offered with the provider visible in the data processing agreement (Boldsign EU residency in the Netherlands, with SignRequest being deprecated), and documents link to Dropbox, SharePoint and OneDrive. I found no public information on an eIDAS signature level, SAML or SCIM provisioning, webhooks, or an export that includes versions, approvals and audit trail, so the exit picture is only partway there. 2 3 4 8 11 12
The Sales Ops Owner
A documented API to retrieve, add and update information; Excel and PDF export of contracts, billing transactions, events, business partners and attachments; sign-in with Google or Microsoft; and document links to Dropbox, SharePoint and OneDrive that keep the source system's access rules. E-signing services are part of the product so signature sits in the same flow, but we found no public information on the eIDAS level, named CRM or ERP integrations, webhooks, or an export carrying versions, approvals and the audit trail. 2 3 4 8 11 12
The IT Integrator
The API is documented — retrieve, add and update, with keys configured in the settings menu — and the export delivers Excel and PDF plus the attachments from the contract repository; I found no public information on versions, approvals or audit trail inside that export, nor on webhooks, API versioning, SCIM, or SAP and Salesforce connectors. Single sign-on via Google or Microsoft is stated, documents can be linked from Dropbox, SharePoint or OneDrive so source permissions stay in place, and e-signing runs with Boldsign's EU data residency in the Netherlands, though I found no public information on the eIDAS level. Good enough to integrate against; the exit path is metadata without history. 2 3 4 11 12
The Data Protection Officer
A documented API lets customers retrieve, add and update account information or embed Trackado in their own application; e-signing services are offered, with the DPA placing signature data in the EU/EEA via Boldsign's Netherlands residency; documents can be linked in Dropbox, SharePoint or OneDrive; and contracts, billing transactions, events, business partners and attachments export to Excel and PDF, with download of all data promised in the terms. We found no public information on the eIDAS level of the signature, on SAP or DATEV-class integrations, on SCIM or webhooks, or on export that includes versions, approvals and audit trail. 4 8 11 12
The Skeptic
A documented API for retrieving, adding and updating records, Excel and PDF export covering contracts, billing transactions, events, business partners and attachments, download of all data at any time, SSO via Google or Microsoft, document linking to Dropbox, SharePoint or OneDrive, and e-signing services are documented. We found no public information on the eIDAS level of the signatures, maintained integrations with systems common in DACH, SCIM or webhooks, or an export that includes versions and the audit trail. 2 3 4 8 11 12
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Who the contracting entity is, where contracts and their extracted data are hosted, and who the subprocessors are — including the AI and OCR providers the text is passed to. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; weighted with care here because a contract repository holds a company's most confidential commitments and those of its counterparties. Dimensions the evidence does not establish are unknown, not non-European.
0 — Vendor, contracting entity and hosting all shown to be outside the EU, with no data processing agreement offered.
3 — A privacy policy and a data processing agreement offered, with hosting or the contracting entity outside the EU or not established.
5 — EU hosting stated and an EU contracting entity or EU representative, with a data processing agreement offered.
8 — EU hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, subprocessor list published including AI and OCR providers with locations, and a DPA covering contract data as the customer's processing.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: European ownership, entity, hosting and every subprocessor, AI processing within the EU on providers the customer can see, certifications (ISO 27001, BSI C5 or equivalent) published.
The General Counsel
A Swedish entity — Trackado AB, Bromma, org. no. 559045-8948 — contracts under Swedish law with the District Court of Stockholm named, hosting is stated as within the EU on Microsoft Azure in Western European data centres with Microsoft Ireland Operations Ltd listed as the hosting subprocessor, and a published data processing agreement offers SCCs, yearly audit rights and subprocessor objection rights. The subprocessor list is provided on request rather than published, and we found no public information on certifications such as ISO 27001 or BSI C5, which keeps this below the fuller level. 1 3 4 5
The Procurement Analyst
Trackado AB is a Swedish entity under Swedish law and the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection, hosting is stated as within the EU on named infrastructure (Microsoft Azure, with Microsoft Ireland Operations Ltd listed as subprocessor), and a data processing agreement is offered covering Article 32 measures, Standard Contractual Clauses and audit rights. The subprocessor list is sent on request rather than published, and I found no public information on ownership structure or certifications such as ISO 27001 or BSI C5. 1 3 4 5
The Sales Ops Owner
Trackado AB is a Swedish entity contracting under Swedish law, hosting is stated as within the EU on Microsoft Azure in Western European data centres, and a published data processing agreement covers contract data with audit rights, Standard Contractual Clauses and a right to object to new subprocessors. Microsoft Ireland is named as the EU hosting subprocessor, though the full list is sent on request rather than published, and we found no public information on ISO 27001 or BSI C5 certifications. 1 3 4 5
The IT Integrator
Trackado AB is a Swedish entity under the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection, hosting is on named Microsoft Azure infrastructure in Western European data centers, and the DPA brings Swedish governing law, Standard Contractual Clauses for transfers, yearly audit rights and named subprocessors including Microsoft Ireland and Stripe Payments Europe. The subprocessor list is sent on request rather than published as a standing page, and I found no public information on ISO 27001 or BSI C5 certification. 3 4 5
The Data Protection Officer
Trackado AB (org. no. 559045-8948, Bromma) is a Swedish contracting entity under Swedish law with the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection as supervisor; hosting is stated as Microsoft Azure in Western European data centres with Microsoft Ireland Operations Ltd named in the DPA; and the DPA treats contract data as processing on the customer's instruction with Article 32 measures, SCCs for transfers, annual audit rights, and a 10-day objection right with termination if a subprocessor dispute is unresolved. The subprocessor list is sent on request rather than published as a standing page, and we found no public information on certifications such as ISO 27001 or BSI C5, or on European ownership. The captured pages give different answers on location: the security page keeps all application data in Western Europe while the privacy policy contemplates transfers outside the EU under SCC safeguards. 1 3 4 5
The Skeptic
EU hosting on Microsoft Azure in Western European data centres, a Swedish contracting entity under Swedish law and the Swedish privacy authority, a published data processing agreement with audit rights and SCC transfer terms naming a hosting subprocessor in Ireland, and an e-signing provider with EU data residency in the Netherlands are all documented. The complete subprocessor list is provided only on request rather than published, and we found no public information on ISO 27001 or BSI C5 certification. 1 3 4 5
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the real annual cost from public pages alone: the pricing basis (per user, per contract, per module), which features sit in which tier, add-ons for AI, e-signature volume or integrations, onboarding and migration fees, and the minimum term.
0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.
3 — A public "from" price, a free tier, or one priced tier, with the rest on request.
5 — Prices for each tier public with the billing period (per month or per year) and the pricing basis (users, contracts or modules).
8 — Every tier priced publicly with its basis and limits, add-on prices listed, onboarding and migration costs stated, minimum term and VAT treatment given.
10 — Complete price computability: annual invoice derivable for a given number of users, contracts and signatures, with every add-on, overage and implementation fee published.
The General Counsel
All fees are set in the applicable Order Form — we found no public prices at all, not even a "from" price or a tier list. Billing monthly or annually in advance, VAT excluded, automatic renewal, optional add-on modules invoiced only with approval, and a no-credit-card trial are documented, but a buyer cannot compute an annual cost from the public pages. 2 3
The Procurement Analyst
All fees are "as set forth in the applicable Order Form" and I found no public prices anywhere on the captured pages, so a buyer cannot compute an annual cost. The terms do document the mechanics honestly — monthly or annual billing in advance, VAT excluded, automatic renewal, optional add-on modules at additional cost, no refunds — and a free trial runs without credit card, which lifts this slightly above pure sales-conversation pricing. 2 3
The Sales Ops Owner
We found no public prices: the terms state that all fees are as set forth in the applicable Order Form, and optional add-on modules carry additional cost without figures. Public pricing facts stop at a free trial without credit card, monthly or annual billing in advance, taxes excluded, and automatic renewal — not enough to put a number in next year's budget. 2 3
The IT Integrator
All fees are 'as set forth in the applicable Order Form' and I found no public information on price figures, tiers or the pricing basis, so an annual cost cannot be worked out from public pages. The terms do state billing in advance monthly or annually with taxes excluded, automatic renewal, no refunds, suspension twenty days after a missed payment, optional add-on modules at additional cost, and a trial that runs without a credit card. 2 3
The Data Protection Officer
All fees are set in the applicable order form — monthly or annual, billed in advance, taxes excluded, no refunds — and we found no public price figures, tiers or per-user basis on any captured page. A free trial without credit card is documented, as are optional add-on modules at additional unspecified cost, auto-renewal and account suspension after 20 days of non-payment. 2 3
The Skeptic
No price figure, tier, pricing basis or add-on amount appears on any captured page — fees are as set forth in the applicable Order Form. What is public is commercial mechanics: monthly or annual billing in advance, optional add-on modules at additional cost, VAT excluded, auto-renewal, no refunds, and suspension twenty days after a missed payment — useful to read before signing, useless for computing an annual cost. 2 3
European sovereignty — proven facts
1 of 6 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hosting location | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Hosting options | Cloud service only ⚠ unverified | 0/1 pts | 2 Report an error |
| Open source | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data processing agreement | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Transfer impact assessment | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Trackado
Is Trackado European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Trackado is based.
Where does Trackado store data?
The default storage location for customer data is not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026. The vendor’s pages mention the EU as hosting location, per the vendor’s page captured 3 Nov 2026.
Does Trackado have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Trackado?
As of 4 Nov 2026, the panel rates fynk (3.5/5), DiliTrust Contracts (3.5/5) and Gatekeeper (3/5) highest among the other 27 Contract Management (CLM) 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 fynk (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Trackado alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 3 Nov 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 processing agreement, Legal entity, Hosting location. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- Weak sourcing — Hosting options. No page explicitly states there is no self-hosted or on-premises option; cloud service only rests on the terms barring any access to the software's code and the service being offered solely as software-as-a-service.
- 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.
- 6 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
- 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
- 4 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 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
- 1 compliance 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
- 3 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. 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 page www.trackado.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 2 Terms of service — found from the homepage www.trackado.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy — found from the homepage www.trackado.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 4 Data processing agreement (dpa) — found from the homepage www.trackado.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 5 Security / trust page — found from the homepage www.trackado.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 6 Drafting, templates & clause library — found from sitemap help.trackado.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 7 Negotiation, redlining & approval — found from sitemap help.trackado.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 8 Negotiation, redlining & approval — found from sitemap help.trackado.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 9 Repository, deadlines & obligations — found from sitemap help.trackado.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 10 Repository, deadlines & obligations — found from sitemap help.trackado.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 11 Integrations, signature & exit — found from sitemap help.trackado.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 12 Integrations, signature & exit — found from sitemap help.trackado.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →