Data Protection
audatis MANAGER
EU-Made Report an errorPanel 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 audatis Group GmbH · www.audatis-manager.de
Compare with Robin Data ComplianceOS → Compare with preeco | datenschutz → 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.
No written verdict for this product
The panel scored audatis MANAGER, but the summary our synthesizer wrote did not survive our own contradiction check — twice. Rather than print a paragraph we cannot stand behind, we print none. Every score, rationale and source below is unaffected; read them and draw the conclusion yourself.
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 RoPA is treated as the engine: 65-77-activity industry template packs, save-as-template and group templates, delegation to responsible users, and export as an official authority register; AVV management even auto-generates the Art. 30(2) processor register, and the Group/Whitelabel editions with 2-46 Mandanten are explicitly built for external DPOs. Below 8 because legal bases and TOMs are not evidenced as linked into one data model and DPIA triggers are not derived from the record. 4 2 3
The In-House Counsel
The VVT is a real core: DSFA with risk management in-system, AVV management that auto-generates the processor register, TOM templates, group templates, delegation and export as an official-register format. I stop short of the top anchors because the evidence never shows activities linked to systems and legal bases, nor DPIA triggers derived from the record. 4 2 3
The Drafted Generalist
The RoPA module is the real deal for someone like me — industry packs with 65–77 pre-built activities, save-as-template, group linking, delegation to the people who actually know the process, and export as the official register the authority expects. AVV management even auto-generates the processor's own register. But nothing shows DPIAs triggered from the record or TOMs and legal bases wired into one connected data model, so it's a strong set of modules, not one system of record. 4 2
The Lead Auditor
The VVT is a real register — 400+ prebuilt activities across sector packs, save-as and cross-org-unit group templates, and AVV management that automatically documents the Art. 30(2) processor register — plus native mandate capability. What's not evidenced is the connected model of the 8 anchor: no proof that activities link to TOMs, systems and legal bases in one data model, nor DPIA triggers derived from the record. 4 2 3
The IT Integrator
RoPA, DSFA with risk management, AVV and TOM modules all exist, and the RoPA layer is unusually deep — industry template packs of 65-77 activities, group templates, delegation to responsible users, and export as an official register — plus real multi-tenancy from 2 to 46 Mandanten. What's missing is evidence of the connected data model: no statement that activities drive DPIA triggers, TOM coverage or legal bases from one record, so it sits between rubric level 5 and 8. 4 2 3
The Skeptic
The RoPA module is real — sector template packs of 65–77 activities, delegation to responsible users, edit history, group templates and an official-register export — with DSFA-with-risk-management, AVV and TOM modules listed. But nothing captured shows processing activities linked to legal bases, systems or TOMs in one data model, or DPIAs triggered from the record; 67 pre-filled activities is content depth, not connection. 4 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
DSR handling for access/erasure/withdrawal with central templates and task workflows exists, and the deletion concept module models Fristen, storage locations and deletion classes — but as documentation, not tracked execution. No breach register, no 72-hour clock and no authority-notification workflow appear anywhere in the evidence; that absence caps the operational half below rubric level 5. 2 3
The In-House Counsel
DSR handling with templates and workflows plus a Löschkonzept as documentation exists, but the evidence is completely silent on a breach register, a 72-hour clock or any Art. 33 notification output — for me that half of the operational DSMS is unevidenced and therefore absent. No statutory-clock automation is claimed either. 2 3
The Drafted Generalist
Betroffenenanfragen get managed centrally with answer templates and the Löschkonzept has genuine structure — deadlines, storage locations, deletion classes — which is more than a log. But there is no breach register anywhere in this sheet: no 72-hour clock, no authority notification, no statutory deadline automation, and for the operational half of the DSMS silence is the finding. 2 3
The Lead Auditor
DSR handling with templates and a Löschkonzept with fristen, storage locations and classes exist as features, but there is no intake portal, no Art. 12 clock, and no deletion execution tracking evidenced. Decisive gap: nowhere in the evidence is there a breach register or 72-hour/Art. 33 capability — the only incident-adjacent module is the whistleblower system, which is a different law — so the operational half sits at the log-and-templates anchor. 1 2 3
The IT Integrator
DSR management with central templates and a deletion-concept builder (deadlines, storage locations, deletion classes) are confirmed, which is more than a log. But the evidence is completely silent on a breach register, the 72-hour clock, authority notification output, and statutory deadline automation — missing evidence that a German DSMS should have surfaced loudly — so it can't clear rubric level 5. 2 3
The Skeptic
DSR handling exists as centralized request management with answer templates, and a deletion concept with retention periods, storage locations and deletion classes is offered — but no statutory clock, no intake channel, and no evidence deletion is executed rather than documented. A breach register and 72-hour/authority-notification workflow appear nowhere in the captured pages; the only incident-adjacent module is the optional whistleblower system, which is not Art. 33. 2 3
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
DSGVO/BDSG plus Swiss DSG and the church laws EKD/KDG is the right regime set for the DACH-and-church market, and the Infodienst delivering vetted legal updates plus regular updates shows the content is maintained. But no one-record-many-regimes mapping is evidenced, and UK GDPR, ePrivacy and AI Act duties are absent. 3 2 1
The In-House Counsel
GDPR/BDSG/DSG/EKD/KDG with current statute texts, regular updates and a curated legal-update service genuinely covers the German mid-market, authority and church clientele they target. No UK GDPR, ePrivacy or AI Act duties, and no evidence that one record maps across regimes rather than being per-regime work. 3 2 1
The Drafted Generalist
DSGVO, BDSG, Swiss DSG and both church laws (EKD/KDG) genuinely match its market — Behörden und kirchliche Einrichtungen are named target customers — and the Infodienst pipes reviewed legal updates plus current law texts into the product. But this is German-market coverage: no UK GDPR, no AI Act privacy duties, and nothing showing one record mapping across regimes rather than being re-documented per law. 2 3 1
The Lead Auditor
Gesetzesbasis DSGVO/BDSG/DSG plus church statutes EKD and KDG, current law texts, a curated Infodienst update stream and regular updates cover the major regimes for this vendor's German Mittelstand/church/authority market, with ISO 27001, NIS-2 and TISAX breadth on top. But nothing evidences one-record-many-regimes mapping, and no non-German regimes (UK GDPR, AI Act, ePrivacy) appear at all — market-major-set coverage without cross-mapping. 1 2 3
The IT Integrator
DSGVO/BDSG/DSG/EKD/KDG plus current legal texts and the curated Infodienst update feed is genuine coverage of its actual market, and regular updates are claimed. Nothing evidences one-record-many-regimes mapping, and UK GDPR, ePrivacy and AI Act duties are absent, which caps it at the anchor that describes market coverage with partial cross-mapping at best. 1 2 3
The Skeptic
The regime list fits its German market exactly — DSGVO, BDSG, Swiss DSG, EKD and KDG as current statutory texts — with regular updates and an in-product Infodienst. But one-record-many-regimes mapping is nowhere evidenced, AI Act, ePrivacy and UK GDPR are absent, and the 'fachlich geprüfte Datenschutz-Updates' name no lawyer or accountable editor — a legal-update promise with no human behind it. 3 2 1
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
Edit history for Eingabekontrolle, revision-safe online attestations, activity reports auto-generated from DSMS KPIs and the official-register export mean a client audit file assembles without weeks of manual work. Missing for 8: no audit-scoped evidence packs on demand, no explicit auditor access roles, and no demonstrated 'state on date X' reconstruction. 4 2
The In-House Counsel
Edit history for Eingabekontrolle, revision-safe attestations, reports pulling KPIs automatically and an official-register export are defensible material. Nothing in the evidence produces an audit-scoped evidence pack, auditor access roles, or a state-on-date-X reconstruction, so an audit file still gets assembled by hand. 4 2
The Drafted Generalist
Edit history per activity for Eingabekontrolle, revision-safe online confirmation of employee attestations, and reports that pull KPIs straight from the DSMS put this above PDF screenshots. What I don't see is an audit-scoped evidence pack on demand, auditor access roles, or any defensible answer to 'show me the state on date X' — so assembling the full file for an authority would still be my weekend. 4 2
The Lead Auditor
The VVT carries an edit history explicitly framed for Eingabekontrolle and exports as an official-register ('behördliches Verzeichnis') document, attestations are confirmed 'revisionssicher' online, and report management pulls KPIs automatically — better than ad-hoc PDF assembly. But revision safety is claimed per feature, not system-wide: no audit-scoped evidence packs, no auditor access role, and no defensible 'state on date X' reconstruction is evidenced, which caps it below 8. 4 2
The IT Integrator
An edit history explicitly for Eingabekontrolle, revisionssicher-confirmed employee attestations, a report generator pulling KPIs from the DSMS, and CSV/Word export as an internal or authority-facing register clear rubric level 5's versioned-records-and-reports bar. No evidence of audit-scoped evidence packs, auditor access roles, or a point-in-time reconstruction, so the gap to 8 is unsubstantiated rather than just unclosed. 4 2
The Skeptic
Revision-safe employee attestations, a per-record edit history for Eingabekontrolle, and report generation pulling KPIs from the DSMS, plus export as an internal or official register, are genuine anchors. But no audit-scoped evidence packs, no auditor access roles, and no demonstrated answer to 'show me the state on date X'; the outputs are CSV and Word files, not proof packs an authority accepts as-is. 2 4
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
CSV/Word export is the only evidenced connectivity to the real estate; no API, directory import, SSO/SCIM or native connectors appear anywhere in the evidence, and the whitelabel ticket-system integration is a one-line mention. Delegation and workflow integration are genuine but this is manual entry with reminders, not automation that removes re-typing across mandates. 4 2 3
The In-House Counsel
The entire estate interface is CSV/Word export and, on the whitelabel tier, an integrable ticket system; no API, directory import or SSO appears anywhere. Delegation and workflows are internal to the tool — nothing feeds the RoPA from AD or pushes evidence back into ticketing, which means records decay between reviews. 4 3
The Drafted Generalist
No API, no directory import, no live connectors anywhere in the evidence — the best I get is CSV/Word export of the register and task workflows I can assign to colleagues. The only 'integration' is bolting my own ticket system onto the whitelabel tier, which tells me the automation lives in reminders and assignments, not in my actual IT estate. 4 2 3
The Lead Auditor
The only estate-facing interface evidenced is CSV/Word export; no import, no documented API, no directory sync, no connectors or webhooks anywhere in the evidence — automation is task/workflow delegation and reminders. The whitelabel 'own ticket system integrable' is support plumbing for the host, not estate integration. That is the closed-ish island with export anchor. 4 2 3
The IT Integrator
This is the CSV-drawbridge island I reject: the only confirmed machine interface is CSV/Word export of the RoPA, employee management is manual records rather than directory sync, and the sole integration gesture is an 'own ticketsystem einbindbar' option in the whitelabel tier. There is not one mention of a REST API, webhooks, SSO/SCIM, AD/Entra import or any connector to the estate — the internal task workflow and delegation is the only automation on the evidence. 4 2 3
The Skeptic
Not one captured page mentions an API, SSO, directory import or webhook — the estate-facing surface is CSV/Word export, and the only ticket-system integration is the whitelabel variant's own support channel. Automation means internal tasks, workflows and delegation, i.e., the recurring work is organized, not removed; this is a closed island with an export button. 4 3
European sovereignty
panel opinion
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
German GmbH in Herford (HRB 13983, German VAT ID) with product hosting stated as 'Rechenzentrum Standort Deutschland / Eigener Server' gives a clean EU core including an on-prem option. But the product's own DPA, TOMs and subprocessor list are unpublished, so exposure cannot be verified from the evidence. 5 3 6
The In-House Counsel
A German GmbH at a German register court with German data centers and an own-server option is a jurisdiction I can defend. But no public DPA or subprocessor list exists for the platform itself, and the vendor's own pages run Elastic APM through an entity addressed in San Francisco, so the chain is not transparent end to end. 5 3 6
The Drafted Generalist
German GmbH in Herford, product datacenter 'Standort Deutschland' as the default, and even an own-server option at the top tier — my RoPA would live in Germany. But there's no published DPA or TOMs for the platform itself, the subprocessor list I can see is website-scoped and includes Elastic APM at a San Francisco address, and the evidence itself flags the vendor entity as unconfirmed, so the chain is plausibly clean but not proven clean. 5 3 6
The Lead Auditor
German GmbH in the Herford registry with a Germany-datacenter default and an own-server option for the product is genuinely European — better than EU-on-request. But the SaaS chain itself is undocumented: no public product DPA, no product subprocessor list, no TOMs, and the vendor's own web chain runs US-anchored Elastic APM (San Francisco operator) — so it lands between the on-request and published-chain anchors. 5 3 6
The IT Integrator
A German GmbH at a German court, product hosting in a German datacenter with an own-server option, and a DPA with IONOS (Montabaur) are solid European facts. But the disclosure is website-shaped, not platform-shaped: no published DPA or TOMs for audatis MANAGER itself, no product subprocessor list, ownership unknown, and Elastic APM with a San Francisco address sits in the disclosed chain. 5 3 6
The Skeptic
A German GmbH under Amtsgericht Bad Oeynhausen, Germany as the default datacenter and an own-server option are solid and confirmed. But no product DPA or subprocessor list is published anywhere captured, ownership is undocumented, the header says 'audatis Group GmbH' while the imprint and copyright say 'audatis Services GmbH', and the vendor's own site leans on US-addressed Elastic APM — a compliance vendor that doesn't publish its own chain. 5 3 6
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
Every price on the evidence — all three editions, per-10-user packs, storage per GB, ISMS add-on, flatrate tiers — is 'Auf Anfrage'; not one number is public. Credit of one point only for the fully visible edition/employee-tier structure and the 30-day trial, which makes the sales conversation short but still leaves the real invoice incomputable. 3
The In-House Counsel
Every figure — standard, group, whitelabel, extra users, storage, ISMS add-on, flatrate — is 'Auf Anfrage'; only the 30-day trial and the included tenant/user counts are public. No buyer can compute a real invoice from these pages, so this is the bottom anchor. 3
The Drafted Generalist
Every single price line — Standard, Group, Whitelabel, every add-on, even extra gigabytes of storage — reads 'Auf Anfrage'. I can see the tier shape (10 users included, 2 or 46 tenants) but not one number, so my two-minute invoice exercise starts with a sales call and a 30-day trial. 3
The Lead Auditor
Every single line — standard, group, whitelabel, storage per GB, users per 10, annual flatrate tiers, ISMS add-on — reads 'Auf Anfrage'; no euro figure is published, so the real invoice is a sales conversation by definition. The published edition structure (10 users included, 2 vs 46 tenants, 30-day trial, invoice billing) is the one point above bare zero. 3
The IT Integrator
Every edition and every add-on — Standard, Group, Whitelabel, extra users, storage, ISMS, the employee-tier flatrates — reads 'Auf Anfrage', with only billing-by-invoice and a 30-day trial public. That is rubric level 0 verbatim: not a single number from which any invoice could be computed. 3
The Skeptic
Every single price line — standard, group, whitelabel, extra users, storage, ISMS module, unlimited flatrate — reads 'Auf Anfrage'; the only computable fact is a 30-day free trial. Published edition boundaries (10 users included, 2 vs 46 tenants, employee-tier flatrates) are the sole reason this isn't the floor. 3
European sovereignty — proven facts
1 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 | 3/3 pts | 5 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 23 Aug 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — 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.
- 5 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
- 4 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
- 2 subprocessors 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 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
- The panel’s written verdict is withheld: our own re-read found claims in it that the evidence does not carry, and a second synthesis did not fix them. The scores and the material below are unaffected. Know more? Tell us
Sources (6)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.audatis-manager.de Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Features page www.audatis-manager.de Checked 16 Sep 2026 +1 earlier capture: 24 Aug 2026 Details →
- 3 Vendor pricing page www.audatis-manager.de Checked 16 Sep 2026 +5 earlier captures: 24 Aug 2026, 24 Aug 2026, 24 Aug 2026, 23 Aug 2026, 23 Aug 2026 Details →
- 4 RoPA feature page www.audatis-manager.de Checked 16 Sep 2026 +5 earlier captures: 31 Aug 2026, 24 Aug 2026, 24 Aug 2026, 23 Aug 2026, 23 Aug 2026 Details →
- 5 Imprint www.audatis-manager.de Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 6 Privacy policy www.audatis-manager.de Checked 16 Sep 2026 +1 earlier capture: 31 Aug 2026 Details →