whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

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

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 Lead Auditor

Weighted verdict

Audits management systems for a living and has seen every folder of screenshots. Optimizes for revision-safe history, evidence packs on demand, and a defensible answer to "show me the state on date X". Rejects systems where the audit trail is assembled the week before the audit.

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

Scored by The Lead Auditor

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 Lead Auditor

The captured pages show a connected model: processing records synchronize automatically with impact assessments, technical measures and vendors, the DPIA threshold analysis is derived from the record, and legal bases under Art. 6 and 9 sit in legally reviewed templates alongside SDM-linked technical measures. A one-click package to the authority spanning processor agreements through records suggests authority-usable outputs. We found no public information on reusable group templates or multi-client mandate handling; entity counts per plan are the only group signal. 7 8 9

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 Lead Auditor

Requests arrive as cases with owner, status and ID, deadlines and data locations are determined automatically, responses go out through a protected data room, and the deletion concept is generated from the record itself; incidents are documented centrally with a guided decision process. We found no public information on intake portals or forms, identity checks, deadline escalation, a 72-hour clock, or evidence that a deletion actually executed. 1 8 9

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 Lead Auditor

GDPR depth is real, the German Standard Data Protection Model 3.1 is built in with always-updated building blocks and seven guarantee goals, and AI Act duties run as an AI Flow that builds on the same documentation as the privacy module — one record serving two regimes. We found no public information on Swiss, UK or other national privacy regimes. 1 8 9

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 Lead Auditor

Evidenced: register exports in PDF and Excel, a one-click package to the authority spanning processor agreements through records, audit templates for ISO, GDPR and the AI Act, gap-analysis questionnaires and PDCA planning. We found no public information on revision-safe change history, evidence attachments per activity, or auditor access roles; how a record looked on a given date is the question nothing captured answers. 7 8 9

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 Lead Auditor

Shown: automatic migration of existing documentation into the platform, a live website cookie check by URL, approval workflows with follow-up reminders, and an AI assistant with agents taking over recurring steps. We found no public information on a documented API, directory import, ticketing connectors, SSO or webhooks, so the automation on show is guided workflow and reminders rather than the platform feeding from the live estate. 2 1 7

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 Lead Auditor

The imprint establishes a GmbH seated in Berlin with a German VAT ID and named managing directors, which settles the entity question cleanly. Beyond that we found no public information on where the platform itself is hosted, on a customer data processing agreement, or on a platform subprocessor list; the captured privacy policy documents the website chain only, which includes a US provider in Delaware with AWS hosting and Google LLC and Microsoft Corporation transfers under the Data Privacy Framework. For the system that would hold a customer's register of processing, that silence is not a small thing. 3 4 5

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 Lead Auditor

The Essential tier carries a public starting price quoted as ab 79€ pro Monat, with one legal entity, unlimited users and unlimited documents stated. The captured pricing page gives entity counts for Professional, Corporate and Enterprise but shows a figure only for Essential, with Enterprise priced auf Anfrage, so the real invoice for a multi-entity group is not computable from public pages; we found no public information on setup fees or how software and services are separated. 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.

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

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