Data Protection
Akarion GRC Cloud
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by AKARION GmbH · akarion.com
Compare with caralegal → 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
Akarion GRC Cloud is a data-protection GRC platform from Akarion GmbH (Linz), a 100% subsidiary of Akarion AG (Munich), hosted on STACKIT in DE & AT. It is strongest at records & DPIA depth: a dynamic record of processing that updates automatically when processes or assets change, DSFA with in-system data-flow visualization, processor management, TOMs with authority-facing reports, and template-tenant inheritance for groups. Audit readiness & evidence follows at 6-8 on revision-safe incident documentation and one-click auditor reports, and integrations & automation at 6-7 rests on 13 named connectors — though no documented API or webhooks appear. Weakest is data subject rights & incidents, flat at 4: the breach workflow monitors the GDPR 72-hour deadline, but no data-subject intake, Art. 12 clock or deletion handling appears. Privacy regime coverage runs 3-5, with SDM (DSGVO) the lone privacy regime beside ISO 27701. The genuine split is sovereignty, 4-7: identical EU entity and hosting facts, docked differently for the missing public DPA, subprocessor list and TOMs. No price appears on any captured page.
Speaks for it
- Records & DPIA depth scores 7-8 on a record of processing that updates automatically as processes and assets change
- DSFA with in-system data-flow visualization, central processor management, TOMs with customizable authority reports and TIA support in the Data Protection module
- Multi-tenancy with inheritance and template tenants rolls a master tenant out to any number of sub-tenants
- Audit readiness & evidence scores 6-8 on revision-safe incident documentation, an audit trail and button-press reports for management and auditors
- Thirteen named connectors, including Jira, ServiceNow and Matrix42, with custom connectors on request
Held against it
- Data subject rights & incidents sits at a flat 4: breach tooling exists, but no data-subject intake, Art. 12 clock, identity check or deletion handling appears
- Privacy regime coverage scores 3-5; the framework list is security-heavy and the privacy regimes stop at SDM (DSGVO) and ISO 27701
- No documented API and no webhooks appear in the captured pages, and Autoprovisioning names no mechanism
- No public DPA, subprocessor list or published TOMs appears in the captured evidence — the gap behind the sovereignty split of 4-7
- No price, edition boundary or billing period appears on any captured page
Best for
- You manage data protection for a DACH group and want one master tenant rolled out to many sub-tenants with inheritance
- You need the record of processing to stay current automatically as processes and assets change, rather than as a static list
- You must assess breaches against the GDPR 72-hour deadline with revision-safe documentation and authority-facing TOM reports
- Your estate already runs Jira, ServiceNow or Matrix42 and native connectors cover the feed
Avoid if
- You must handle data-subject requests end to end — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You operate under regimes beyond GDPR, such as Swiss nDSG, UK GDPR, ePrivacy or AI Act privacy duties
- You need to automate against a documented API or webhooks rather than named connectors alone
- You cannot put your RoPA anywhere without a public DPA and subprocessor list in hand
The scores
Records & DPIA depth
Show reasoningHide reasoning
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.
The External DPO
The dynamic VVT that auto-updates from process and asset changes, DSFA with in-system data-flow visualization, central AVV/processor management and a TOM register with authority-facing reports form a genuinely connected model — and Mandantenfähigkeit with inheritance including template tenants, rollable from a master to any number of sub-tenants, is exactly the reusable-template engine a thirty-mandate practice needs. What holds it below the top anchor: no evidence of legal-basis modeling or DPIA triggers derived from the record — the DSFA looks like a strong module, not yet driven by the RoPA. 3 1 2
The In-House Counsel
The VVT is a 'dynamisches System' where changes to processes and assets update automatically, and processors (AVV), TOMs with authority-ready reports, DSFA with data-flow visualization and TIAs all sit in the module — that is a genuinely connected model with mandate inheritance for groups. But legal-basis modeling and DPIA triggers derived from the record are unevidenced, so I stop short of the 8 anchor. 3 1 2
The Drafted Generalist
The Datenschutz module is a real connected model: VVT as a dynamic system where changes to processes and assets update automatically, DSFA with in-system data flow visualization, processor management with contracts and audits, central TOMs with authority reports, plus TIAs — and multi-tenancy with inheritance and template tenants, handles group reuse. It stops short of the top anchor: legal bases are never mentioned, and nothing shows DPIA triggers being derived from the record or audit-ready output without manual assembly. 1 2 3
The Lead Auditor
The VVT is sold as a dynamic system where changes to processes and assets update automatically, with DSFA incl. in-system data-flow visualization, central processor management, TOMs with authority-customizable reports and TIA, plus template-tenant inheritance for group reuse. That is a genuinely connected model, but legal-basis linkage and DPIA triggers derived from the record appear nowhere in the evidence, so I stop below the 8 anchor. 3 4 1
The IT Integrator
The VVT is claimed as a dynamic system where changes to processes and assets update automatically, with DSFA data-flow visualization, processor management, TOM documentation with authority reports and TIA as modules — plus Mandant inheritance with template tenants for group reuse. What's missing is evidence of legal-basis modeling and DPIA triggers derived from the record itself, so I can't confirm full 8-level linkage. 3 2 1
The Skeptic
The DSMS page claims a genuinely connected model — a dynamic VVT that updates from processes and assets, DSFA with data-flow visualization, central Auftragsverarbeiter management with contract/audit tracking, TOMs with authority-facing reports, and TIA documentation — plus mandate inheritance with template tenants that looks like real group reuse. It falls short of an 8 because nothing evidences legal bases living in the system, DPIA triggers derived from the RoPA, or authority-accepted outputs; this is one polished marketing page, not proof of depth. 3 1 2
Data subject rights & incidents
Show reasoningHide reasoning
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.
The External DPO
The breach half is real: a guided assessment workflow that monitors the 72-hour deadline and revisionssicher step-by-step incident documentation. But the evidence is entirely silent on data subject request handling — no intake, no Art. 12 clock, no identity check, no deletion concepts — and absence across half the criterion caps it below the midpoint despite solid breach tooling. 3 4
The In-House Counsel
The breach side holds up: a workflow that 'führt Sie durch die Bewertung und überwacht die kritische 72-Stunden-Meldefrist' with revision-safe documentation. The rights side is silent — no intake channel, no Art. 12 clock, no identity check, no deletion workflow, and no evidence the workflow produces the Art. 33 notification itself; missing evidence is information. 3 4
The Drafted Generalist
The breach half is solid — a guided workflow that monitors the GDPR 72-hour deadline and revision-safe incident documentation — but the data subject rights half does not exist in the evidence: no request intake, no Art. 12 clock, no identity verification, no deletion concept anywhere on the privacy module page. For someone who has to answer a Betroffenenauskunft herself, that gap is the difference between a 4 and an 8. 2 3 4
The Lead Auditor
The breach half is real: a workflow that guides assessment and monitors the 72-hour deadline, with incident steps documented revision-safe. The data-subject half does not exist in this sheet — no intake channel, no Art. 12 clock, no deletion concept, no evidence a deletion ever executed — and half a criterion absent is a mid-table score, not charity. 3 4
The IT Integrator
The breach half is real: a workflow that guides assessment and monitors the 72-hour deadline, with revision-safe step documentation in incident handling. But the evidence is entirely silent on data subject rights — no intake channel, no Art. 12 clock, no identity check, no deletion concepts — and half an operational criterion missing caps this hard. 3 4
The Skeptic
The breach half reaches the level-5 claim — a workflow that guides assessment and monitors the 72-hour GDPR clock — but the data-subject half is completely silent: no intake form, no Art. 12 clock, no identity check, no deletion concept, no Art. 33 report output anywhere in the captured pages. Half a criterion with no evidence is information, so this lands between the breach-5 and DSR-absence. 3 4 2
Privacy regime coverage
Show reasoningHide reasoning
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.
The External DPO
GDPR is operationalized via the SDM content with TIA/third-country transfer support, which covers its DACH home market, and the single dynamic register feeding many frameworks suggests cross-mapping rather than per-regime islands. But no Swiss nDSG, no UK GDPR, no ePrivacy and no AI Act privacy duties appear anywhere in the evidence — 'one record, many regimes' is inferred from the architecture, not shown. 1 3 2
The In-House Counsel
The framework list is long but privacy-thin: GDPR via SDM and ISO 27701 are the only privacy regimes operationalized; no Swiss nDSG despite an Austrian entity and AT hosting, no UK GDPR, no ePrivacy, no AI Act duties — only ISMS frameworks like NIS-2, DORA and BSI fill the list. There is a visible maintenance cadence (217 updates in 2024), but nothing evidences one-record-many-regimes privacy mapping, so this does not reach the 5 anchor for my multi-jurisdiction exposure. 1 2 3
The Drafted Generalist
GDPR operationalized via the German SDM plus ISO 27701 across a very DACH-flavored stack,, but nothing on UK GDPR, Swiss nDSG, ePrivacy or AI Act privacy duties, and no evidence one processing activity maps onto multiple regimes. The impressive framework list is mostly information security (BSI, NIS-2, DORA, PCI DSS), which does not count for privacy regime coverage. 1 2 4
The Lead Auditor
On privacy regimes this is GDPR-only: 'SDM (DSGVO)' is the single privacy entry in a list otherwise made of security standards — no BDSG, no Swiss nDSG, no UK GDPR, no ePrivacy, and no AI Act duties despite the vendor shipping generative AI. 217 updates in 2024 prove the platform moves, but privacy-regime breadth and one-record-many-regimes mapping are unevidenced. 1 2 4
The IT Integrator
The framework list is ISMS-heavy (BSI 200-x, ITGS, C5, NIS-2, DORA, PCI DSS); for privacy specifically it reduces to SDM (DSGVO) and ISO 27701 — solid German-market depth, but no Swiss nDSG, UK GDPR, ePrivacy or AI Act duties anywhere in evidence. The 217 updates in 2024 are software velocity, not proof the legal content moves when the law does. 1 2
The Skeptic
The framework list is deep on the security side (BSI Grundschutz, NIS-2, DORA, ISO family) but the privacy-regime column is one entry: SDM (DSGVO) — no Swiss nDSG, no UK GDPR, no ePrivacy, no AI Act privacy duties, and no evidence of one-record-many-regimes mapping. '217 updates in 2024' is platform velocity, not a documented legal-content cadence, so I can't credit maintenance of regimes that aren't listed. 1 2 4
Audit readiness & evidence
Show reasoningHide reasoning
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".
The External DPO
Revisionssicher incident documentation, an audit trail, one-click reports for management and auditors and customizable TOM reports for authorities cover most of what the 8-anchor demands, and client-ready output is what I bill hours on. Missing: audit-scoped evidence packs on demand, named auditor access roles beyond generic granular rights, and any defensible 'show me the state on date X' capability — none of that is in the evidence. 4 3 2 1
The In-House Counsel
Reports 'auf Knopfdruck' for management and auditors, TOMs with 'anpassbaren Reports für Behörden', revision-safe incident documentation and a named audit-trail plus a dedicated Audit module give me a defensible baseline. What keeps it from 8: no evidence of audit-scoped evidence packs on demand, auditor access roles, or an answer to 'show me the state on date X'. 4 3 2
The Drafted Generalist
Revision-safe documentation is claimed explicitly, an Audit-Trail sits in the security features, a dedicated Audit module exists, and management/auditor reports are generated at the push of a button, — plus multi-stage approval workflows for sign-offs. It misses the top anchor only on point-in-time reconstruction ("show me the state on date X"), which is nowhere claimed. 2 3 4
The Lead Auditor
An Audit-Trail sits in the security feature list, incident handling is documented 'revisionssicher', TOMs produce customizable authority reports, and management/auditor reports are generated at a click under multi-stage approvals. What keeps it from 8: no evidence of audit-scoped evidence packs on demand, and nothing that answers 'show me the state on date X' — revision safety is claimed, point-in-time proof is not. 2 4 3 1
The IT Integrator
Audit-Trail and revisionssicher step documentation, TOM reports for authorities, dashboards with management/auditor reports at a button press, multi-stage approval workflow and a dedicated Audit module — that reads close to standing readiness. What the evidence doesn't evidence is scoped evidence packs on demand or an answer to 'show me the state on date X'. 4 3 2 1
The Skeptic
The claims overshoot rubric level 5 — revisionssichere incident documentation, on-click reports for management and auditors, TOMs with customizable reports for Behörden, an audit trail, multi-stage approvals and a dedicated Audit module. But nothing evidences audit-scoped evidence packs, auditor access roles, or point-in-time reconstruction ('state on date X'), so it stays below 8 on claim-not-proof. 4 3 2 1
Integrations & automation
Show reasoningHide reasoning
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.
The External DPO
Thirteen named connectors including ServiceNow, Jira, omnitracker and Matrix42, custom connectors on request, SSO, MFA and autoprovisioning mean the real ticketing and asset estate feeds the platform, and the AI generates risks/measures with explicit human review of linked datasets — plus genuine toil-removal in the master-tenant top-down update and the auto-updating register. What keeps it from 8: no documented API and no webhooks anywhere in the evidence, which limits the automation plumbing I can build for thirty clients. 2 1 4 3
The In-House Counsel
Thirteen named connectors including ticketing (Jira, ServiceNow), asset sources (Matrix42) and process modeling (Signavio), plus SSO, autoprovisioning and generative AI with explicit human review is a real estate feed, not an island. But no documented REST API and no webhooks appear anywhere in the evidence, and escalation is only implied by the multi-stage approval workflow. 2 1 4
The Drafted Generalist
A real connector set — thirteen named ones including ticketing (ServiceNow, Jira, omnitracker) and HR/asset sources (Matrix42, Dynamics) plus custom connectors on request — with SSO and autoprovisioning and generative AI that drafts then hands you the review step. But no documented API and no webhooks appear anywhere in the evidence, which caps it below the connector-plus-interface anchor. 1 2 4
The Lead Auditor
Thirteen named connectors including Jira, ServiceNow, Matrix42 and Fabasoft, custom connectors on request, SSO/MFA/autoprovisioning, and AI that generates content then submits it for human review — a real connector set with defensible AI assistance. But the evidence documents no API and no webhooks, so this is connector-mediated, not infrastructure: I cannot verify access to the data model from outside the product. 2 1 4
The IT Integrator
The connector set is genuinely from the real estate — Jira, ServiceNow, Matrix42, Confluence, plus custom connectors on request and SSO/MFA — and AI-generated content with explicit human review is the right pattern. But no documented API and no webhooks exist anywhere in the evidence, and 'Autoprovisioning' is a bullet with no named mechanism (no SCIM, no Entra); without API parity I can't call this infrastructure, only a well-connected island. 2 1 4
The Skeptic
The connector list is the hardest fact here — 13 native integrations spanning ticketing (Jira, ServiceNow, omnitracker), ECM and collaboration, plus custom connectors, SSO/MFA and real automation in top-down mandate inheritance and automated Schutzbedarfsvererbung. But 'Autoprovisioning' is a bare word with no SCIM named, and no documented REST API or webhook appears anywhere — the AI claims at least admit human review, but infrastructure this is not. 2 1 4
European sovereignty
panel opinion
panel disagrees
Show reasoningHide reasoning
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.
The External DPO
The chain that matters is clean on the facts: GmbH in Linz under a 100% AG parent in Munich, hosting exclusively on STACKIT in DE/AT with infrastructure explicitly under German and partly Austrian jurisdiction, development 100% in AT/DE. But the captured evidence contains no published DPA and no subprocessor list — the documentation half that rubric level 5 and 8 both require — so despite an EU-clean entity and hosting story, I cannot take it past the middle. 2 6 5 1
The In-House Counsel
The chain is European where I can see it: Akarion GmbH (Linz) under a Munich AG, hosting on STACKIT in DE/AT, infrastructure expressly under German and partially Austrian jurisdiction, 100% development in AT/DE. But no DPA, no published subprocessor list and no TOMs are evidenced anywhere — for the system holding my RoPA I cannot certify jurisdictional cleanliness without that paper. 6 5 1 2
The Drafted Generalist
Jurisdictionally this reads clean: Austrian GmbH under a German AG,, STACKIT hosting in DE/AT with infrastructure explicitly under German and Austrian jurisdiction, ISO 27001 for the whole company and 100% development in AT/DE,. But the evidence is silent on a DPA, a subprocessor list and published TOMs — and the platform holding my RoPA is itself my most concentrated processing, so those missing documents cost it. 1 2 5 6
The Lead Auditor
The chain is as clean as paper gets: GmbH in Linz under a Munich parent AG, registers and VAT IDs published, ICT infrastructure explicitly under German and partially Austrian jurisdiction, hosting on STACKIT in DE/AT with 100% development in AT/DE. It misses the 8 only because the captured evidence publishes no DPA, no TOMs and no subprocessor list — the last link of the chain rests on trust. 6 5 1 2
The IT Integrator
Two EU entities (Akarion GmbH Linz, Akarion AG Munich, 100% subsidiary), STACKIT hosting in DE/AT with infrastructure explicitly under German/Austrian jurisdiction, 100% development in AT/DE — jurisdictionally clean on its face. But the chain isn't documented publicly in the captured evidence: no subprocessor list and no public DPA/TOMs, which is exactly what I need before parking a whole RoPA there. 6 2 5 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 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.
The External DPO
Not a single price anywhere in the evidence — five modules and a 98% renewal rate are the only commercial facts, so every configuration is a sales conversation. For a consultancy pricing thirty client deployments, this is the worst case the anchor describes: the invoice is incomputable from public pages. 1 4
The In-House Counsel
Not one price appears in the captured pages; the offering is modular ('5 Module für Ihren individuellen Bedarf') with AI features and custom connectors 'auf Anfrage', so every real invoice is a sales conversation. This matches the 0 anchor — describing the market norm, but nothing is computable here. 1 2
The Drafted Generalist
"5 Module für Ihren individuellen Bedarf" and a module list with not one euro figure anywhere — every configuration is a sales conversation. The anchor for zero public prices is zero, however normal that may be in this market. 1 4
The Lead Auditor
Nothing: no price, no edition boundary, no billing period appears on any captured page even though the modules are enumerable. Per the anchors, silence is zero — every invoice is a sales conversation. 1 2
The IT Integrator
No price number appears anywhere in the captured pages — '5 Module für Ihren individuellen Bedarf' is a module count, not a price, and every configuration routes through sales. That's the B2B norm in this market, but the anchor is the anchor: the real invoice is incomputable from public evidence. 1 2
The Skeptic
Five modules 'for your individual needs' and a module lineup are described across four captured pages, and not one number, edition, billing period or setup fee appears anywhere. Every configuration is evidently a sales conversation, which is the anchor-0 definition, however normal that is in this market. 1 2 4
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 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 | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 16 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, Data residency, Subprocessors. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- 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.
- 2 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
- 3 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are 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 (8)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage akarion.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Platform overview page akarion.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Data protection (DSMS) module page akarion.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 ISMS module page akarion.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 About page akarion.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 6 Imprint akarion.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 7 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap akarion.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap akarion.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →