CRM
CentralStationCRM
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 42he GmbH · centralstationcrm.com
Compare with Pipedrive → 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
CentralStationCRM, a cloud-based CRM from founder-held 42he GmbH of Cologne, scored strongest on pricing transparency and sovereignty and weakest on sales pipeline, contact management and automation, which sits at 0 with no variation. The pricing pages are its richest evidence: four tiers from Team at €24 per month (3 users, 3.000 contacts) to Enterprise at €289 (40 users, 40.000 contacts), plus VAT, with identical functions in every package, a 30-day trial requiring no payment details, and cancel-anytime terms. Sovereignty credit rests on customer data and attachments stored in Germany, a GDPR-compliance claim, and a 100% self-financed German entity; the rationales pair that credit with the absence of a published DPA, subprocessor list or deletion controls, and scores range 6-7. The functional gap is just as clear: no captured page mentions pipelines, stages, forecasts, triggers or workflows, and the integration story is a single line of English API documentation. No split between the judges was large enough to flag.
Speaks for it
- Four tiers publicly priced at €24/€75/€149/€289 per month plus VAT, with per-tier user, contact and storage limits
- 30-day trial requiring no payment details, with cancel-anytime terms and no charge from the next day
- Customer data and attachments stored in Germany by a founder-held, 100% self-financed German GmbH (since 2010) under a GDPR-compliance claim
- All packages offer exactly the same range of functions, differing only in users, contacts and data storage
- Self-serve data export available at any time, with automatic backups and multiple storage
Held against it
- No pipeline, stage, deal, forecast or reporting capability evidenced on either captured page
- Automation scored 0 across the table, with no triggers, sequences, routing or workflow builder on record
- Integration evidence is limited to 'API documentation (English)' with no evidenced email or calendar sync, webhooks or native connectors (integrations 2)
- Export scope and format are unspecified, with no evidence that notes, activities or attachments come out
- Separately bookable storage and contact add-ons carry no published price, and no annual/monthly split is shown
- The contact data model is unevidenced beyond contact-count tier limits — no companies, deals, custom fields or dedupe appear in the evidence
Best for
- You need a plainly priced contact store for a small team, with identical features in every tier and a 30-day trial requiring no payment details
- Your compliance posture requires customer data and attachments hosted in Germany by a founder-held German entity, and you can obtain the DPA and subprocessor details the vendor does not publish
- You prioritize easy exit — self-serve anytime export and cancel-anytime terms — over pipeline and automation depth
Avoid if
- You run a sales process that needs stages, forecasts, quotas or reporting — the evidence evidences none of it
- You rely on automation, email/calendar sync or third-party connectors — nothing beyond English API documentation is on record
- You need a published DPA, subprocessor list or retention and deletion controls before signing — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You expect to outgrow the 40-user, 40.000-contact Enterprise ceiling with priced add-ons or overage rules — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
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 only contact facts in the evidence are tier limits — '3.000 CONTACTS', '10.000 CONTACTS' — with zero mention of companies, deals, custom fields, dedupe or merge. 'The easy CRM software for small teams' cuts both ways: easy is my speed, but nothing here evidences more than a contact store with maybe cosmetic extras, so I score it just above a flat address book. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
Records exist — tiers are priced by contact count — but the registry is silent on custom fields, dedupe, merge, and relations between people, companies and deals. For a database of other people's personal data, a data model I cannot see is hygiene I cannot verify, so I score just above the address-book floor. 1 2
The Sales Ops Lead
The entire data-model story is a contact count in a price table and 'import data and get started' — no custom fields, no required fields, no dedupe, no merge, not even evidence the standard three objects exist. That's at or below the flat-address-book anchor, and I can't build stage hygiene on records I can't validate. 1 2
The RevOps Integrator
The only contact facts on record are plan limits ("3.000 CONTACTS" up to "40.000") and a video-guided import; no companies, deals, custom fields, or dedupe tooling appear anywhere in the registry. Missing evidence is information — I cannot build a revenue model on an address book. 1 2
The Migrator
The evidence proves contacts exist as a counted, importable unit and nothing more — no companies, no deals, no custom fields, no dedupe or merge, not a word on the data model. A CRM whose entire public surface is 'contacts and storage' scores as an address book until it shows me relations and hygiene tooling. 1 2
The Skeptic
The only data model the two pages evidence is a contact count and an attachment quota — the tiers literally price 'contacts' as a unit, and nothing mentions companies, deals, custom fields, dedupe or relations. 'The easy CRM for small teams' with packages that 'differ only in users, contacts and data storage' smells like a flat address book with marketing on top. 1 2
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
Not one word about pipelines, stages, deals, win/loss or forecasts anywhere in the registry — and I run my business out of the pipeline, so this is the criterion I checked hardest. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
Not a single pipeline, stage, required field, report or forecast appears anywhere in the registry — the vendor pages are entirely silent on the criterion. Nothing is enforced and nothing rolls up because nothing on this sheet says anything rolls up. 1 2
The Sales Ops Lead
This is the criterion I live by and the registry is completely silent: no deals object, no stages, no probabilities, no quota, no forecast, no report builder appears anywhere in either captured page. A vendor whose whole functional pitch is 'the easy CRM for small teams' evidences nothing that enforces a process, so it sits at the kanban-with-nothing anchor and below. 1 2
The RevOps Integrator
No deal object, stage, forecast or reporting is evidenced at all; the vendor positions itself as "the easy CRM software for small teams" and its sibling product is a reservation system, not a sales tool. This scores the 0 anchor: nothing pipeline-shaped even exists to be enforced. 2
The Migrator
Zero evidence of pipelines, stages, forecasts or reporting — the word 'deal' doesn't appear anywhere in the registry. Missing evidence is information: I cannot credit a pipeline the vendor never mentions even in its own pitch. 1 2
The Skeptic
Not one word about pipelines, stages, forecasts, quotas or reports on either the homepage or the plans page — and this sheet is my entire world, so an unevidenced pipeline is a nonexistent one. A CRM that markets itself purely on ease and contact counts is telling you the finance department will not be signing its forecasts. 1 2
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
Complete silence on triggers, sequences, routing, workflows — not even email templates are evidenced. Nothing to score above the floor: whatever automation exists, the vendor hasn't put it on either of these two pages, and I can only buy what's published. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
The only self-service workflow on record is 'watch a short video, import data and get started' — no triggers, sequences, routing or branching evidenced anywhere. Unevidenced is nonexistent, and this sits at the no-automation anchor. 1 2
The Sales Ops Lead
The only 'automatic' thing on record is backups. No triggers, sequences, routing, or workflow builder is evidenced anywhere — not even the email templates the 0 anchor assumes, so 0 without hesitation. 1
The RevOps Integrator
Not a trigger, workflow, sequence or routing rule is on record — the closest automation claim is "watch a short video, import data and get started". Zero is the honest anchor. 1 2
The Migrator
No triggers, workflows, sequences or routing anywhere in the evidence — not even an email-template claim. Nothing to score but absence. 1
The Skeptic
Zero evidence of triggers, sequences, routing or even email templates across both pages; the closest thing to workflow the vendor publishes is 'watch a short video, import data and get started.' Missing evidence is information: by the evidence's own silence, the automation layer either doesn't exist or isn't worth mentioning. 1 2
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
The entire integration story is one fact: 'API documentation (English)' exists. A documented API is real and better than nothing, but there is zero evidence of two-way email or calendar sync, Zapier, webhooks or a native directory — a read-mostly-API-level showing at best. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
English API documentation exists, which clears the no-API floor, but there is no evidence of email or calendar sync, native connections, webhooks, or a two-way API. An API that matters for data extraction at least exists; everything else the criterion needs is absent. 1 2
The Sales Ops Lead
'API documentation (English)' is the whole integration story: an API exists, which beats CSV-only, but there is zero evidence of email or calendar sync, native integrations, webhooks, or API depth. That lands just above 0 and well short of the 3 anchor's one-way email logging and Zapier triggers, none of which are evidenced. 1 2
The RevOps Integrator
"API documentation (English)" is the single point above zero, and I credit it because a documented API is a start; but there is no evidence of two-way email or calendar sync, webhooks, Zapier, or a single native connector to anything money flows through. This is exactly the closed ecosystem I reject — the CRM may well be an island, and the evidence gives me nothing to prove otherwise. 1 2
The Migrator
English API documentation exists, which is more than CSV-in-a-vacuum, but there is no evidence of two-way email or calendar sync, webhooks, or a single native integration. An undocumented-depth API with no sync story sits between rubric level 0 and 3. 1 2
The Skeptic
The entire integration story is one line — 'API documentation (English)' — with no evidence of two-way email/calendar sync, a native directory, webhooks or OAuth. Documentation existing is not the same as an API that treats external systems as first-class; I'll credit the paper, not the promise. 1 2
European sovereignty
panel opinion
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
42he GmbH out of Cologne, customer data and attachments stored in German data centers, GDPR compliance claimed — that's an EU entity with EU-default hosting, most of the way to the 8 anchor. But no published DPA, no subprocessor list, no retention or deletion controls appear anywhere, and the structured sovereignty attributes themselves are 'not on record', so I stop short of 8. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
Strong bones: German entity, German data centers holding data and attachments, GDPR-compliant claim, and 100% self-financed since 2010 so no US capital shapes the stack. But the evidence records no published DPA, no subprocessor list, no retention or deletion controls, and automatic backups with no stated expiry is precisely how 'deleted' personal data survives — I cannot sign off without a caveat file. 1 2
The Sales Ops Lead
A founder-held German entity (42he, Cologne) with German data centers including attachments and a GDPR claim gives strong defaults no US vendor matches here. But no published DPA, no subprocessor list, and no retention or deletion controls appear anywhere, so exposure is unnameable rather than narrow — my DPO would still need a caveat file. 1 2
The RevOps Integrator
Strong bones: founder-held 42he GmbH in Cologne, "storage of customer data and attachments in Germany", German data centers and GDPR compliance — EU entity with EU-default hosting, which beats the mid anchors. But no DPA, no published subprocessor list, and no retention or deletion controls are evidenced, so a DPO cannot sign off without a caveat file. 1 2
The Migrator
German GmbH, data and attachments stored in Germany, GDPR claims — EU-default hosting from an EU entity, which is the right shape. But no published DPA, no subprocessor list, no deletion controls evidenced, so a DPO signs off with fingers crossed rather than paper. 1 2
The Skeptic
Genuinely decent: a founder-held, self-financed German GmbH storing customer data and attachments in Germany with a GDPR claim as the headline. But 'GDPR-compliant' is the nicest thing a vendor will ever say — no published DPA, no subprocessor list, no retention or deletion controls on record — so I stop short of an 8. 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
'You can export your data independently at any time', self-serve import via short video, and cancel-tomorrow-without-charge terms are a decent exit posture on paper. But the evidence never says what the export contains — notes, activities, attachments, relations? — nor the format, so it lands between contacts-only-drops-history and full-object export. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
'You can export your data independently at any time' plus self-serve import, no-contract cancellation and API docs is a respectable exit posture for a small-team CRM. But export scope — activities, attachments, relations — and formats are entirely unevidenced, and an unspecified export is not a plan. 1 2
The Sales Ops Lead
'Export your data independently at any time', self-serve import on onboarding, and cancel-today-no-charge-tomorrow terms are a genuine start on the anti-lock-in front. But nothing specifies format or completeness — whether notes, activities, attachments and relations come out — so exit is promised, not specified; between the 3 and 5 anchors. 1 2
The RevOps Integrator
"You can export your data independently at any time" is confirmed self-serve exit, and API docs exist to help — that clears rubric level 3. But nothing states export formats or whether notes, activities and attachments come out, and import is "short video, import data" with no mapping, dedupe or migration-tooling evidence, so I stop short of 5. 1 2
The Migrator
'You can export your data independently at any time' is the sentence I live for, and no long-term contracts with next-day cancellation makes leaving contractually painless. But export scope is unaudited — no proof notes, activities and attachments come out, no open formats, no dedupe or dry-run on import — so it's a promise, not yet a demonstrated full-fidelity exit. 1 2
The Skeptic
'You can export your data independently at any time' is the right sentence, but nothing says what 'your data' includes — notes, activities, files, relations all unverified — and the import story is 'watch a short video.' Self-serve anytime export earns real credit; unquantified scope on a homepage keeps it mid-table. 1 2
Pricing transparency
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
Every tier priced in plain sight with limits stated — Team 3 users/3.000 contacts at €24, Small Office €75, Business €149, Enterprise €289, all 'plus VAT', 30-day trial with no payment details, cancel anytime — and 'all packages offer exactly the same range of functions' means no feature hostage-taking, which I respect. Kept below 8 because the separately-bookable storage and contact add-ons are unpriced in the evidence and there's no annual/monthly split or overage rule shown for when I blow past 3.000 contacts. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
All four tiers carry real EUR/month prices with users, contacts, storage and VAT treatment stated, identical features across tiers, and cancel-anytime terms — an invoice is computable from public pages. Docked for no annual/monthly split and for separately bookable storage and contacts add-ons whose unit prices are never published. 1 2
The Sales Ops Lead
The one place the evidence is rich: all four tiers carry real monthly prices with VAT stated and hard limits on users, contacts and storage, plus no-contract terms and a 30-day no-card trial. The knock is that extra storage and contacts are 'bookable separately' with no published prices and no annual split or overage rules are shown — my 40 seats sit exactly at the Enterprise ceiling with nowhere priced to grow. 1 2
The RevOps Integrator
All four tiers are publicly priced with users, contacts, storage and "plus VAT" stated, identical features across tiers, a 30-day no-card trial and cancel-anytime terms — genuinely computable at 3 seats. It loses points because storage/contact add-ons are mentioned but unpriced, there is no per-seat price between bundle jumps (10 vs 20 vs 40 users), and no annual/monthly split is stated. 1 2
The Migrator
Four tiers, real monthly numbers, VAT treatment stated, limits spelled out (users/contacts/GB), identical features across tiers and cancel-anytime — I can compute most invoices in two minutes. It falls short of full computability only because separately bookable storage and contacts carry no published unit prices and no annual split is shown. 1 2
The Skeptic
Four tiers with real euro prices, VAT treatment stated, limits per tier, cancel-anytime, no payment details for the 30-day trial, and — rare honesty — 'all packages offer exactly the same range of functions,' so no feature-gating trap. The gaps that keep it off 8: extra contacts and storage 'can be booked separately' with no published price, no annual/monthly split shown, and the ladder just stops at 40 users/40k contacts with no overage rule. 1 2
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 | 3 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | EU only ⚠ unverified | 3/3 pts | 1 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 — Ownership. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- Weak sourcing — Legal entity. The country name is not written out; DE is derived from the German registration court (AG Köln) and the Cologne address rather than an explicit country statement.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency. This is a marketing bullet on the homepage/pricing page; the privacy policy excerpt only covers hosting of the vendor's own website and never states where the CRM product's servers are located.
- 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 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 product 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
- 1 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. 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 (7)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage centralstationcrm.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Vendor pricing page centralstationcrm.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Legal notice centralstationcrm.com Checked 21 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Privacy policy centralstationcrm.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Contact & data model — found from sitemap centralstationcrm.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Integrations & API — found from sitemap centralstationcrm.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Integrations & API — found from sitemap centralstationcrm.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →