Data Protection

caralegal

EU-Made 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 caralegal GmbH · caralegal.eu

An AI-assisted analysis of public evidence — not a hands-on test.

Every score, rationale and verdict on this page is AI-generated. Every claim cites the source it was read from. Nothing here is a human star review — and no score can be bought. How scores are made →

Method and versions

The External DPO v2.0 · The In-House Counsel v2.0 · The Drafted Generalist v2.1 · The Lead Auditor v2.0 · The IT Integrator v2.0 · The Skeptic v2.1 · rubric v2 · evaluated 4 Oct 2026

Compare with preeco | datenschutz → Compare with Akarion GRC Cloud → 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 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

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 legal artifacts are genuinely connected: processing activities synchronize automatically with DPIAs, TOMs and service providers, the DPIA threshold analysis derives from risky activities, and outputs from processor agreements to the RoPA go to the authority at a click. With more than 200 activity templates, records for both controller and processor roles, and legally reviewed templates, this is a real data model rather than linked folders. I found no public information on multi-client or mandate capability for consultancies, which keeps it a step below the strongest showing. 7 8 9 2

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

Requests land in the system with automatic deadline tracking, automatic data-location lookup and a secure data room for responses, the breach register runs a guided decision process, and the deletion concept is generated straight from the record of processing. The harder automation is not visible: no public information on intake portals or forms, identity verification, a 72-hour authority notification output for breaches, or evidence that deletion actually executes rather than being documented. 8 9 2 7

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

The German core is deep: the Standard-Datenschutzmodell 3.1 with all seven guarantee goals and continuously updated modules is built in, and AI Act and ISO duties arrive as audit templates plus an AI Flow that sits on the same documentation as the Privacy Flow. Beyond that market I found no public information on Swiss nDSG, UK GDPR or ePrivacy, and no per-country variants or a documented update cadence when regimes move. 9 8 1 2

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

Output is the strong half: one-click authority submissions from processor agreements to the RoPA, audit templates for ISO, DSGVO and the AI Act, and questionnaire templates for gap analyses, with PDF and Excel export of the register. The defensible trail is unevidenced — no public information on revision-safe change history, auditor access roles or evidence packs, so the state of a record at a past date stays unproven from the captured pages. 2 8 7

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

This is where it loses me: the only estate-facing evidence is a one-time automatic migration of existing documentation and PDF/Excel export — a drawbridge, not a bridge. I found no public information on a REST API, directory import, SSO, SCIM, webhooks or ticketing connectors; the AI assistant and agents automate internal workflow steps, not synchronization with the systems I already run. 2 7 1

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 entity side is solid: a Berlin-based German GmbH with a published imprint, and a privacy policy naming website subprocessors with locations and Article 28 contracts — including a US one (Supademo Inc. in Delaware, hosted on AWS) and US transfers to Google LLC and Microsoft Corporation under the Data Privacy Framework. For the compliance record itself I found no public information on hosting location, named data centers or the platform's own subprocessor chain, which is the part that matters most for a system holding your register. 3 5 4

Report an error

Pricing transparency

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

One real number: Essential from 79€ per month with one legal entity, and the legal-entity ladder per plan is published alongside unlimited users and documents, a 50% nonprofit discount and a free trial after a demo. The middle tiers carry no captured prices, Enterprise is on request, and the single figure is a stated starting price — so the real invoice for anything beyond the smallest setup remains a sales conversation. 4

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.

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 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 — 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.

82 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
6 support 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
5 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
3 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 hosting 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
1 compliance 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 integrations 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
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

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

Sources (9)

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

1 Vendor homepage caralegal.eu Checked 15 Sep 2026 +2 earlier captures: 24 Aug 2026, 23 Aug 2026 Details →
2 Product page (EN) caralegal.eu Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
3 Imprint caralegal.eu Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
4 Vendor pricing page caralegal.eu Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
5 Privacy policy caralegal.eu Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
6 Security / trust page caralegal.eu Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
7 Records & DPIA depth — found from sitemap caralegal.eu Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
8 Records & DPIA depth — found from sitemap caralegal.eu Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
9 Privacy regime coverage — found from sitemap caralegal.eu Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →