whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

CRM

Firmao

EU-Made Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: 1 of 4 dimensions proven

0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.

by Firmao sp. z o.o. · firmao.net

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 Data Protection Officer

Weighted verdict

Knows a CRM is a database of other people's personal data before it is a sales tool. Optimizes for GDPR posture: EU hosting, DPA, subprocessor hygiene, consent fields, retention and deletion that actually delete. Rejects US-default hosting and enrichment features that scrape contacts from the open web.

Same scores as the panel view — this lens weights them the way this judge cares.

Scored by The Data Protection Officer

Contact & data model

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.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

A sales management module is named, and customer and company records are shown being created automatically by website forms and third-party tools, which at least evidences relations between people and companies. But we found no public information on custom fields, field validation, deduplication or merge tooling, required fields, or permissioned access to records — none of the hygiene a database of contacts needs can be verified from the captured pages. 1 3 4

Report an error

Pipeline & forecasting

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.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

A "Reports and analyses" module is listed among the product modules, and that is the entirety of the pipeline evidence. We found no public information on pipelines, stage requirements, win/loss capture, forecasts, quota tracking or a report builder — nothing evidences an enforced process or anything rolling up. 1 4

Report an error

Automation & workflows

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.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

Website form fills create customer records and assign tasks to employees, and connectors such as GetResponse and Woodpecker push contacts and email campaigns — simple trigger-then-action work. We found no public information on multi-step sequences, branching or delays inside the product; anything richer appears to depend on Zapier rather than native automation. 3 4

Report an error

Integrations & API

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.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

The native directory is substantial — calendar sync for Google and Outlook, email sync for Outlook, telephony, e-commerce, accounting — plus Zapier claimed to reach over a thousand applications, and an API documented, downloadable, and activated with a single click. We found no public information on webhooks, OAuth apps, rate limits, or write parity with the interface, and no email sync for Gmail was evidenced, which keeps this short of the deeper tiers. 3 4

Report an error

European sovereignty

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.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

The vendor presents as a Polish spółka z o.o. with a Łódź address and NIP, part of WeNet Group, which is above the US-entity baseline — but that is where the assurance ends. We found no public information on hosting location or an EU region, on a data processing agreement, on subprocessors and any exposure to US legal reach, or on retention and deletion controls; for a system holding other people's personal data, this silence cannot support a higher score. 1 4

Report an error

Import, export & exit

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.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

The documented API, claimed to enable full synchronization with external systems, is the only evidenced route for data in and out. We found no public information on self-serve import with field mapping, on export coverage of notes, activities, files and relations, or on contractual data-return terms — exit, as far as the captured pages show, is a development project. 3 4

Report an error

Pricing transparency not rated — the vendor publishes no price

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.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

A pricing page exists on the vendor's site, yet no price figures, tier structure, billing period, seat minimums or VAT treatment were confirmed from it. We found no public information that would let a buyer compute a single-seat or thirty-seat invoice from the published material, which sits at the bottom of what I can credit. 2

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

1 of 4 dimensions proven

Built only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.

Ownership Not determined — uncited Report an error
Data residency Not determined — uncited Report an error
Subprocessors Not determined — uncited Report an error

Where this could be wrong

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.

Do you know more about Firmao? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (4)

The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.

  1. 1 Vendor homepage firmao.net Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Vendor pricing page firmao.net Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Integrations & API — found from sitemap firmao.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Integrations & API — found from sitemap firmao.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →