whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Data Protection

2B Advice PrIME

Provenance unknown Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: not determined

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

by 2B Advice GmbH · www.2b-advice.com

Report an error on this page Is this your product? →

Link to this page

2B Advice PrIME: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai 2B Advice PrIME: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai (dark)

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.

2B Advice PrIME at a glance

Vendor
2B Advice GmbH
Headquarters
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
Data hosting
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
Free plan
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
Panel verdict
The AI panel rates 2B Advice PrIME 2.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. The captured pages describe Ailance, the 2B Advice platform developed on the basis of 2B Advice PrIME. how scores are made
As of
Vendor pages captured 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources

2B Advice PrIME alternatives, European ones first →

Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.

The IT Integrator

Weighted verdict

Has to feed the compliance platform from the estate that already exists: Entra ID, Jira, the CMDB. Optimizes for directory import, a real API, webhooks and SSO — compliance data that stays current because it syncs, not because someone retypes it. Rejects data islands with a CSV drawbridge.

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

Scored by The IT Integrator

Panel median The IT Integrator This judge’s scores over the panel median. Each label opens its reasoning below.
Scores per criterion, in stars out of 5
Criterion Panel median The IT Integrator
Records & DPIA depth 3.5 of 5 4 of 5
Data subject rights & incidents 1 of 5 1 of 5
Privacy regime coverage 2 of 5 2 of 5
Audit readiness & evidence 3.5 of 5 3.5 of 5
Integrations & automation 3 of 5 2.5 of 5
European sovereignty 1 of 5 1 of 5

Records & DPIA depth

How this is scored

The DSMS core: records of processing (RoPA/VVT), data protection impact assessments, processor/DPA management and TOMs — how deeply the legal artifacts are modeled and connected.

0 — Document templates in a folder tree; the "register" is a Word file with version numbers in the filename.

3 — A structured RoPA with basic fields and a DPIA questionnaire, but processors, TOMs and legal bases live outside the system.

5 — RoPA and DPIA as linked modules with templates; processor management and TOM assignment exist but are shallow, and group reuse is copy-paste.

8 — A connected data model — processing activities linked to systems, processors, TOMs and legal bases — with DPIA triggers derived from the record, reusable group templates, and outputs a supervisory authority accepts.

10 — Privacy records as a system of record: the RoPA drives DPIAs, processor management and TOM coverage from one data model, multi-client/mandate capability included, and the documentation is audit-ready without manual assembly.

Report an error

The IT Integrator

The record is genuinely connected: the processing register holds purposes, data categories, recipients, service providers, retention periods, TOMs and responsibilities as one central hub, and the DPIA pulls its data straight from that register instead of asking for re-entry, with a yes/no screening and an Art. 35-guided assessment built on EDPB guidance. Multi-client handling across country borders is real. I found no public information on legal-basis fields or a dedicated processor/DPA lifecycle, which keeps it short of a full system of record. 2 6 1

Report an error

Data subject rights & incidents

How this is scored

The operational half of the DSMS: data subject request handling with statutory clocks, breach register and authority notification, deletion concepts that actually delete.

0 — Requests arrive by email and live there; breaches are a phone call and a memo.

3 — A request log and a breach list exist, but deadlines are manual, intake is unstructured, and deletion rules are documentation rather than workflow.

5 — DSR workflows with the Art. 12 clock tracked, structured breach register with the 72-hour clock, deletion concepts assignable to records; automation is reminders.

8 — Intake channels for requests (portal/form), identity-check support, deadline automation with escalation, breach severity assessment and authority-report output, deletion rules tied to the RoPA with execution tracking.

10 — Rights and incidents as operations: end-to-end request handling an authority audit walks through, breach workflows that produce the Art. 33 notification, and deletion automation with evidence that the deletion happened.

Report an error

The IT Integrator

What the pages show is generic plumbing — automated reminders and warnings, tasks routed to responsible people — plus a consulting engagement to develop and implement breach playbooks. I found no public information on a product module for data subject request intake, statutory deadline clocks, a breach register with the 72-hour clock, or deletion concepts with execution tracking. 3 8

Report an error

Privacy regime coverage

How this is scored

Which privacy regimes the product actually operationalizes — GDPR, BDSG, Swiss nDSG, UK GDPR, ePrivacy, EU AI Act privacy duties — and whether one record maps across them or each regime is a fresh island.

0 — One regime, hard-coded; anything else is "on the roadmap".

3 — GDPR plus one national law as separate checklists; the same processing activity is documented once per regime.

5 — The major regimes for its market with partial cross-mapping; newer duties (AI Act, ePrivacy changes) present as content packs of varying depth.

8 — Broad current coverage with one-record-many-regimes mapping and visible maintenance as regimes evolve.

10 — Regime coverage as a living product: multiple privacy regimes on one data basis, per-country variants, and documented update cadence when the law moves.

Report an error

The IT Integrator

GDPR is operationalized concretely — an Art. 35 structure with EDPB-based questionnaires — and one national rule appears as working automation, the German DPO-appointment check that fires on customer creation and update. Multilingual capability and per-country mandates are claimed, but the captured pages give no regime catalog and no one-record-many-regimes mapping; I found no public information on UK GDPR, Swiss law, ePrivacy or AI Act duties. 2 8 1

Report an error

Audit readiness & evidence

How this is scored

Whether the system produces defensible proof: revision-safe history, evidence collection, reports for auditors, authorities and management.

0 — Exports are screenshots; history is overwritten in place.

3 — PDF reports exist but evidence is attached ad hoc and changes leave no reliable trail.

5 — Versioned records, standard report generators for the core registers, evidence attachments per activity; assembling a full audit file still takes days.

8 — Revision-safe change history, audit-scoped evidence packs on demand, management and authority reports current at a click, auditor access roles.

10 — Audit readiness as a standing state: continuous documentation status per regime and scope, exportable proof packs an auditor accepts as-is, and a defensible answer to "show me the state on date X".

Report an error

The IT Integrator

Point-in-time reports that reconstruct the state of data protection on a specific date, change histories with before and after values, links to evidence, and exportable history for audit and management purposes — that is most of what an auditor asks for, and management reporting runs on structured data rather than manual queries. A share of this arrives as advisory-article framing of requirements rather than product-page proof, and I found no public information on auditor-specific access roles. 5 6 2

Report an error

Integrations & automation

How this is scored

Whether the platform feeds from the real IT estate — directory import, ticketing, API — and automates the recurring privacy work instead of re-typing it.

0 — A closed island: manual entry in, PDF out, no API.

3 — CSV/Excel import and export; no live connections, no API worth the name.

5 — Directory import (AD/Entra), a documented REST API for core objects, a handful of native connectors (ticketing or SSO); automation is reminders and recurrence.

8 — Real connector set (ticketing, HR or asset sources), webhooks, SSO/SCIM, workflow automation with delegation and escalation, useful AI assistance with human review.

10 — The platform behaves like infrastructure: API parity for the data model, event streams, bidirectional sync with the estate, and automation that measurably removes the recurring toil (reviews, attestations, evidence pulls) rather than renaming it.

Report an error

The IT Integrator

The automation engine is real and earns its keep: workflows fire on create, update and delete events or on daily, weekly and yearly schedules, without coding, and they create tracked tasks — the weekly stale-record scan and the DPO-appointment checks show recurring toil actually being removed. But the integration story is one sentence claiming connectors without naming a single system; I found no public information on a documented API, directory import, SSO or webhooks, and the Microsoft 365 reference is an article title rather than a stated connector. 1 7 8 5

Report an error

European sovereignty

How this is scored

Where the compliance record of the whole company actually lives and under whose law — entity, hosting, subprocessors, DPA. A platform that maps your processing is itself your most concentrated processing.

0 — Non-EU entity, non-EU-default hosting, no public DPA or subprocessor list — for the system holding your RoPA.

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 or undocumented.

5 — EU hosting is the default, DPA and subprocessor list published; the vendor or a critical subprocessor is still within non-European jurisdictional reach.

8 — EU entity, EU hosting with named data centers, published subprocessor list free of content-touching non-EU processors, DPA and TOMs public.

10 — Jurisdictionally clean end to end: European ownership, EU-only hosting and subprocessors, on-premises or sovereign-cloud options, and the whole chain documented publicly.

Report an error

The IT Integrator

The vendor presents as a German firm — a GmbH with German-language pages and a DACH market — but beyond the letterhead I found no public information on where the platform and its customers' records are hosted, on a published DPA and TOMs, or on a subprocessor list. For the system that would hold a company's entire register, that chain is undocumented in the captured pages. 1 6

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 module, per entity, per year, with consulting unbundled — from public pages alone. Unpublished pricing is the B2B norm in this market, so this criterion describes rather than condemns; the benches weight it accordingly.

0 — No public prices at all; every configuration is a sales conversation.

3 — An entry price exists, but module add-ons, entity counts or bundled consulting make the real total incomputable.

5 — Most editions carry real numbers with billing period stated and software separated from services; at least one commonly needed module or scale step is unpriced.

8 — Every edition and module priced publicly with entity/user boundaries and setup fees stated; only genuine corporate-group contracts are custom.

10 — Complete price computability: modules, scale steps, service packages and renewal rules public, so the invoice for a 100-employee company and a 10-client consultancy is a two-minute exercise.

Report an error

The IT Integrator

No captured page carries a price, an edition structure, user or entity boundaries, or a billing period, while the offering visibly mixes software with consulting through external-DPO and playbook services and routes buyers to a contact channel promising a reply within 48 hours. From public pages alone, the real invoice is not computable at any point. 1 6 2

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

0 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

Questions about 2B Advice PrIME

Is 2B Advice PrIME European?

Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where 2B Advice PrIME is based.

Where does 2B Advice PrIME store data?

Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.

Does 2B Advice PrIME have a free plan?

Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.

What are the best alternatives to 2B Advice PrIME?

As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates preeco | datenschutz (4/5), Dastra (3/5) and caralegal (3/5) highest among the other 41 Data Protection 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 preeco | datenschutz (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: 2B Advice PrIME alternatives.

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 2B Advice PrIME? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (8)

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

  1. 1 Vendor page www.2b-advice.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Records & DPIA depth — found from sitemap 2b-advice.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Data subject rights & incidents — found from sitemap 2b-advice.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Data subject rights & incidents — found from sitemap 2b-advice.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap 2b-advice.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap 2b-advice.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap 2b-advice.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap 2b-advice.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →