CRM
CAS genesisWorld
EU-Made Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 2 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by CAS Software AG · www.cas-crm.com
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
CAS genesisWorld is a CRM from CAS Software AG (Karlsruhe, Germany) whose captured pages document hosting posture far better than product capability. Sovereignty is the strongest area: judges credit cloud hosting in a certified data center in Germany, the vendor's fully GDPR-compliant hosting claim, 'Software Made & Hosted in Germany' and fair.digital certifications, and an on-premise option pitched at banks and authorities — while flagging no published DPA, subprocessor list or retention and deletion controls, the same gaps behind the low mark of 4. Everything operational scores low: integrations 0–1 (no API, email or calendar sync, or connectors; the App Designer/App Store line belongs to sibling product SmartWe), contact & data model and pipeline & forecasting 1–2 (no objects, field types, stages or dedupe evidenced), automation 2–3 (a named 'automated workflows' bullet with no specification). The real split is import, export & exit 0–2: some judges count the on-premise option as keeping the database in the customer's own environment, while the low scorers treat unevidenced export as absent. Pricing is unpublished (pricing transparency 0; excluded from weighted verdicts).
Speaks for it
- Hosts its cloud CRM in a certified data center in Germany
- Holds 'Software Made & Hosted in Germany' and fair.digital certifications
- Offers an on-premise deployment option pitched at banks and authorities for data sovereignty
- Claims fully GDPR-compliant hosting, maintenance, updates and system operation for its cloud service
- Sovereignty is the only criterion on this sheet whose computed maximum reaches 7
Held against it
- Documents no contacts, companies, deals, field types or dedupe across both captured pages
- Evidences no pipeline stages, required fields, forecasts or win/loss capture
- Shows no API, email or calendar sync, or native connectors — the App Designer/App Store claim belongs to sibling product SmartWe
- Publishes no import, export or migration tooling, leaving import, export & exit split 0–2
- Carries no published DPA, subprocessor list or retention and deletion controls in the capture
Best for
- You need a CRM from a German vendor with cloud hosting in a certified German data center
- You are a bank, authority or similarly regulated buyer who needs the on-premise deployment option
- Sovereignty certifications such as 'Software Made & Hosted in Germany' and fair.digital weigh heavily in your evaluation
Avoid if
- You need a documented import, export or self-serve exit path (import, export & exit 0–2)
- Your stack depends on a documented API, email or calendar sync, or native connectors
- You need stage-enforced pipeline with forecasts and win/loss capture a finance department can sign
- You require a published DPA and subprocessor list before shortlisting
The scores
Contact & data model
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Depth and hygiene of the core records — contacts, companies, deals, custom fields, deduplication.
0 — A flat address book; no relations between people, companies and deals.
3 — The standard three objects exist but customization is cosmetic: few field types, no required fields, duplicates accumulate unchecked.
5 — Custom fields across objects, basic dedupe on create, activity history on the record; complex models still need workarounds.
8 — Rich field types with validation, merge and dedupe tooling, relationships beyond the standard model, permissioned field access.
10 — A genuinely modelable system: custom objects or equivalent, bulk hygiene tooling, field-level history — the data model bends to the business, not the reverse.
The Solo Seller
The entire sheet gives me 'sales, marketing and service' as product areas and not a single fact about contacts, companies, deals, field types or dedupe — I can't even confirm the three standard objects relate to each other. For a CRM, that silence is damning. 1
The Data Protection Officer
This is a CRM — a database of other people's personal data — and the evidence tells me nothing about how that database is modeled: no objects, field types, required fields, dedupe, or consent-capable fields are evidenced. Marketing lines about sales/marketing/service areas do not establish record hygiene. I score for absence, and the absence is total. 1
The Sales Ops Lead
The evidence never names a single object: no contacts, companies, deals, custom fields, required fields or dedupe appear anywhere. 'Sales, marketing and service' areas imply records exist, but implied records are not a data model I can hold a 40-seat team to. 1
The RevOps Integrator
The evidence names sales, marketing and service areas but says nothing about contacts, companies, deals, field types, validation or dedupe — the data model nobody documents is a data model I can't build a revenue stack on. I'm scoring marginally above rock bottom only because it's sold as a full CRM, not an address book. 1
The Migrator
Not one fact in the registry touches the data model — no companies, no deals, no field types, and most damning for me, no dedupe capability anywhere. A CRM whose published evidence can't even confirm the standard objects or duplicate handling gets graded at the floor plus a courtesy point for existing as a sales product at all. 1
The Skeptic
The evidence never mentions contacts, companies, deals, custom fields, or dedupe once — for a product marketed as a CRM, that silence is the finding. It gets one point only because a CRM must hold contacts somewhere; nothing here evidences relations, validation, or any hygiene tooling. 1
Pipeline & forecasting
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether the pipeline enforces a process and produces reporting a finance department accepts.
0 — A kanban of deals with amounts; nothing is enforced, nothing rolls up.
3 — Multiple pipelines and stage probabilities exist, but no required fields per stage and only canned reports.
5 — Stage requirements, win/loss capture and standard forecast views; custom reporting is limited or an add-on.
8 — Enforceable process (required fields, stage gates, routing), custom report builder, forecast by team and period with quota tracking.
10 — Forecasting a CFO signs: weighted and commit-based views, historical snapshots, attainment tracking, and reporting composable enough to answer questions the vendor never anticipated.
The Solo Seller
The only pipeline-adjacent claim is 'smart data analysis' on the homepage; nothing on stages, required fields, win/loss capture or forecasting. I'd need to see a stage gate before I trust it to run my week, and the evidence shows none. 1
The Data Protection Officer
Beyond a 'smart data analysis' slogan there is no evidence of pipelines, stage enforcement, win/loss capture or any forecast a finance department could accept. Nothing rolls up because nothing is documented to exist. 1
The Sales Ops Lead
No pipeline, stages, probabilities, quota tracking or forecast view is evidenced even once; the closest claim is 'smart data analysis', which is brochure language, not a report builder a CFO would sign. Without stage enforcement or reporting evidence this scores at the bottom of the scale. 1
The RevOps Integrator
The only pipeline-adjacent evidence is a 'sales' module and generic 'smart data analysis'; nothing on stages, required fields, win/loss capture, forecast views or a report builder. A finance department can sign off on nothing here. 1
The Migrator
The closest thing to pipeline evidence is 'smart data analysis' on the homepage — that's marketing, not process. No stages, no required fields, no forecast or quota views anywhere; nothing here a finance department would sign off on. 1
The Skeptic
'Sales' appears as an area name and 'smart data analysis' as a slogan; not a word on stages, required fields, win/loss capture, forecasts, or a report builder. Marketing nouns are not process enforcement, and a CFO would find nothing to sign here. 1
Automation & workflows
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Triggers, sequences and routing that remove manual work without a consultant.
0 — No automation beyond email templates.
3 — Simple if-this-then-that on records; no multi-step sequences, no branching.
5 — Multi-step workflows with delays and branching, email sequences, basic lead routing — capped by tier or count.
8 — Full workflow builder across objects with webhooks as steps, round-robin routing, sequence analytics.
10 — Automation as infrastructure: versioned workflows, error handling, per-step logs, and limits generous enough that the feature is not its own upsell.
The Solo Seller
'Automated workflows' appears as a headline bullet for genesisWorld and that is the whole story — no sequences, no branching, no routing, no limits disclosed. I'll credit the named capability at the simple-trigger floor and no further. 1
The Data Protection Officer
'Automated workflows' and 'AI assistants' are asserted as marketing copy, with no workflow builder, branching, sequences, routing or limits documented anywhere in the evidence. That is a bare claim of if-this-then-that level automation, and I credit it no further. 1
The Sales Ops Lead
'Automated workflows' is claimed verbatim, so automation exists at some level, but nothing evidences triggers, branching, multi-step sequences, routing or logs. I cannot run stage gates and lead routing on a slogan. 1
The RevOps Integrator
The vendor claims 'automated workflows' for genesisWorld, which clears the email-template floor, but there is zero evidence of multi-step sequences, branching, routing or webhooks as steps. Automation by slogan, not by specification. 1
The Migrator
'Automated workflows' and 'intelligent assistants' are each named once, which at least clears the email-template floor — but there is zero detail on branching, delays, routing, or workflow limits, so it sits at the simple trigger-action anchor and not a point higher. 1
The Skeptic
'Automated workflows' and 'automated processes' are bare bullets with no triggers, sequences, branching, routing, or limits described anywhere in the capture. A feature name is not a feature — this sits below the if-this-then-that anchor because even that much is unconfirmed. 1
Integrations & API
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Two-way email/calendar sync, native connections, and an API that treats external systems as first-class.
0 — No API, no sync; data enters by CSV and leaves never.
3 — One-way email logging (BCC), a handful of Zapier triggers, a read-mostly API.
5 — Two-way email and calendar sync for the major providers, a documented REST API with sane limits, a modest native directory.
8 — Deep native integrations for the revenue stack, webhooks, OAuth apps, API parity with the UI for core objects.
10 — An ecosystem: public API covering everything the UI does, event streams, a marketplace, and sync so reliable the CRM can be the system of record without being the only system.
The Solo Seller
No API, no email or calendar sync, no native connectors anywhere in the captured pages. The closest signal is SmartWe's App Designer/App Store, which is expansion of their own platform, not two-way integration with mine. 1
The Data Protection Officer
No API, no email or calendar sync, no native integrations and no marketplace are evidenced for genesisWorld; the App Designer and App Store line belongs to SmartWe, a different product. From this sheet, data's way in and out is simply unknown. 1
The Sales Ops Lead
Zero evidence of email/calendar sync, a REST API, webhooks or any native connector for genesisWorld. The only extensibility mention — App Designer and App Store — belongs to SmartWe, a different product in the vendor's catalog. 1
The RevOps Integrator
This is my make-or-break criterion and the evidence is silent on all of it: no two-way email or calendar sync, no documented API, no webhooks, no native connectors to anything money flows through. The lone extensibility claim — 'App Designer and App Store' — belongs to the sibling product SmartWe, not genesisWorld, so as evidenced this is a closed ecosystem. 1
The Migrator
For genesisWorld the evidence evidences no API, no email or calendar sync, no webhooks — the only ecosystem fact (SmartWe's App Designer and App Store) belongs to a sibling product, not this one. As far as this evidence goes, data enters and leaves by nothing documented at all. 1
European sovereignty
panel opinion
panel disagrees
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where other people's personal data actually lives and under whose law — entity, hosting, subprocessors, DPA.
0 — US entity, US-default hosting, no public DPA or subprocessor list.
3 — A DPA exists and an EU region is available on request or on top tiers; subprocessor exposure to US CLOUD Act reach is broad and undocumented.
5 — EU hosting selectable at signup, published DPA and subprocessor list; core processing still touches US entities.
8 — EU entity or EU-default hosting with published subprocessors, consent-friendly fields, retention and deletion controls; residual US exposure named and narrow.
10 — European entity, EU-only processing including subprocessors, deletion that provably deletes — sovereignty a DPO can sign off without a caveat file.
The Solo Seller
This is the one bright spot: a German AG running a certified data center in Germany with a 'Made & Hosted in Germany' seal, and an on-premise option pitched at banks and authorities. But no published DPA, subprocessor list or deletion controls appear in the evidence, so a DPO still has caveats to sign. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
This is the one genuinely strong area: a German AG, hosting in a certified German data center, 'Software Made & Hosted in Germany' and 'fair.digital' certifications, plus an on-premise option pitched at banks and authorities with data sovereignty. But no published DPA, subprocessor list, consent fields, or retention and deletion controls are evidenced, and as a DPO I cannot sign off on undocumented subprocessor hygiene — so strong but not 8. 1 2
The Sales Ops Lead
German-default cloud hosting in a certified German data center, 'Software Made & Hosted in Germany' and 'fair.digital' certifications, GDPR-compliant operation, and an on-premise option for banks and authorities — a genuinely European posture despite the computed attributes marking residency unknown. But no DPA, subprocessor list, or deletion and retention controls are in evidence, so I stop well short of a clean sign-off. 1 2
The RevOps Integrator
Genuinely decent raw material: certified data center hosting in Germany as the default, 'Software Made & Hosted in Germany' and fair.digital certifications, and an on-premise option pitched at banks and authorities. What's missing is the paperwork a DPO needs — no published DPA, no subprocessor list, no deletion or retention controls in evidence — so I can't go above the middle. 1 2
The Migrator
This is where the vendor shows its cards: a German AG, cloud hosted by default in a certified German data center, 'Software Made & Hosted in Germany' and fair.digital certified, plus an on-premise option pitched at banks and authorities — genuinely above the 'EU on request' anchor. But no published DPA or subprocessor list surfaces in the captured privacy policy and the computed attributes sit at unknown, so a DPO still signs with a caveat file; mid-range is as far as the evidence carries. 1 2
The Skeptic
Germany-hosted cloud in a certified data center, an on-premise option pitched at banks and authorities, and third-party marks ('Software Made & Hosted in Germany', 'fair.digital') are verifiable signals most vendors can't match. But no published DPA text, no subprocessor list, and no retention or deletion controls appear in the capture — the vendor's nicest words ('fully GDPR-compliant') are doing the rest of the work. 1 2
Import, export & exit
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Getting in with history intact, and out with everything — the anti-lock-in criterion.
0 — Import is a support ticket; export is contacts-only CSV missing notes, activities and files.
3 — Self-serve CSV import with mapping; export covers main objects but drops activity history, attachments or relations.
5 — Guided migration from major competitors, full-object CSV export, API access sufficient to rebuild the database elsewhere with effort.
8 — Complete export (all objects, history, files) self-serve in open formats, import with dedupe and dry-run, no API metering that prices exit out of reach.
10 — Exit as a feature: documented full-fidelity export, migration tooling both directions, and contractual data-return terms — leaving is a weekend, which is exactly why you can stay.
The Solo Seller
Not one fact about import or export — no CSV, no API, no migration mention — so per the rules I treat both as absent. If I can't see the exit door on paper, I assume there isn't one. 1
The Data Protection Officer
Not a word on import, export, migration or API-based exit; the only relevant fact is the on-premise deployment option, which tells me who holds the data but not how it leaves. Anti-lock-in is unevidenced, so I score the absence low. 1
The Sales Ops Lead
Both captures are entirely silent on import and export: no mapping tools, no full-object export, no migration tooling, no API evidence for extraction. The only mitigating fact is the on-premise deployment option, which at least puts the database in the customer's own environment rather than the vendor's. 1 2
The RevOps Integrator
Nothing in the captured pages evidences self-serve import, export of any kind, or an API you could use to rebuild the database elsewhere. By the rule that unevidenced capability is absent capability, exit from this system is currently a support ticket at best. 1
The Migrator
Total silence on the exit path — no import tooling, no export formats, no dedupe-on-migrate, no API terms, nothing between these two pages. The only fact keeping this off zero is the on-premise deployment option: at least the database sits in my own server room, even if no documented extraction exists to get notes and activity history out cleanly. 1
The Skeptic
Nothing on import, export, migration, or exit anywhere in the capture — the anti-lock-in story is simply absent. Until proven otherwise, assume export is whatever the support desk feels like handing you on request. 1
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the real invoice — per seat, per month, at renewal — from public pages alone.
0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.
3 — An entry price exists, but the tiers most buyers need are unpriced, or per-seat maths is obscured by bundles, minimums or mandatory onboarding fees.
5 — Most tiers carry real numbers with billing period and VAT treatment stated, but at least one commonly needed capability hides in an unpriced tier or usage-metered add-on.
8 — Every tier priced publicly including annual/monthly split; limits, seat minimums and overage rules stated; only genuine enterprise contracts are custom.
10 — Complete price computability: every tier, add-on, usage meter and renewal rule public, with a calculator or table that makes the invoice at 3 and 30 seats a two-minute exercise.
The Solo Seller
No price, no tiers, no seat maths, no billing period anywhere on the captured pages. For a 1-5 seat buyer paying with his own card, an invoice I can't compute is an automatic no. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The captured homepage and privacy policy contain no price, tier, seat count, billing period or VAT treatment whatsoever. A buyer cannot compute any invoice, so this lands on the zero anchor. 1
The Sales Ops Lead
Not one price, tier, seat minimum or billing period appears in either capture; every purchase is a sales conversation. I cannot compute an invoice for one seat, let alone forty. 1 2
The RevOps Integrator
Neither the homepage nor the privacy policy shows a tier, a price, a seat count or a billing period — computing the real invoice is impossible from public pages. Every euro here starts with a sales conversation. 1 2
The Migrator
Two vendor pages captured and not a single number survives: no tiers, no per-seat price, no billing period, no VAT treatment, no renewal terms. That is the anchor-zero pattern — every tier a sales conversation, and the real invoice at renewal uncomputable from public pages. 1 2
The Skeptic
No price, no tier, no seat count, no billing terms — the invoice is unknowable from public pages, which is the definition of the bottom anchor. Even the 'fair.digital' certificate, which concerns fair contract terms, doesn't put a single number on anything. 1
European sovereignty — proven facts
2 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 ⚠ unverified | 3/3 pts | 4 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | EU only ⚠ unverified | 3/3 pts | 3 Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited 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 — Legal entity. Jurisdiction taken from the signature line of the terms page naming only city and country, not a formal imprint or commercial register entry.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency. The guarantee sits on an info-center page rather than in the contract and names no specific hosting provider, while on-premises deployments store data on the customer's own infrastructure.
- 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 (cas-crm.com, cas-crm.com/en/privacy-policy.html, cas-software.com/infocenter/key-topics/data-security, cas-software.com/general-terms-and-conditions-of-contract). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. 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 (4)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.cas-crm.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Privacy policy www.cas-crm.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Security / trust page www.cas-software.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Terms of service www.cas-software.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →