Data Protection
Dastra
EU-Made Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 2 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Dastra SAS · www.dastra.eu
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
Dastra, a GDPR platform from French company Dastra SAS, peaks at integrations and automation, a flat 8: a REST API documented to the OpenApi 3.x standard, webhooks, SSO with SAML/OpenID and SCIM, 17 native integrations including Jira, ServiceNow and SAP LeanIX, and Zapier bridging over 3000 apps. Rights and incidents holds at 7 on multi-channel intake, a secure portal, response-time dashboards and an exportable breach register against the 72-hour duty. Audit readiness sits at 6, with no public information on revision-safe history or a state-on-a-given-date answer. Privacy management scored 6-7 and framework coverage 5-6, with no public information on DPIA triggers derived from the record or Swiss nDSG and EU AI Act duties. Sovereignty scored 4-5, weighing Azure hosting stated in the European Union, particularly in France, against Microsoft's US CLOUD Act reach and a published subprocessor list naming US providers. No criterion varied by more than a point; verdicts ranged from 5.8 to 7.0. Pricing transparency scored 1-2: tiers, limits and a free trial are public; no figure is.
Speaks for it
- A REST API documented to the OpenApi 3.x standard, with webhooks, SSO via SAML/OpenID, SCIM and IP filtering, and 17 native integrations including Jira, ServiceNow, SAP LeanIX and DocuSign.
- Data subject request intake from emails, website forms and APIs, with a no-code widget, a secure portal with requester chat, and dashboards tracking overdue requests and average response times.
- An exportable personal data breach register covering the Article 33(1) 72-hour duty and Article 33(5) documentation, with per-task configurable deadlines and data-subject notification.
- The Article 30 record of processing can be built from templates, questionnaires or an AI wizard, and external DPOs can steer multiple clients as one.
- ISO/IEC 27001 and ISO/IEC 27701 certification, TLS 1.2+ in transit and AES-256 or equivalent at rest, and a published provider-by-provider subprocessor list with safeguards.
Held against it
- Sovereignty scored 4-5: hosting runs on Microsoft Azure, a US-headquartered provider within CLOUD Act reach, and the published subprocessor list includes US providers such as Google, Hubspot and Cloudflare.
- No public information on revision-safe change history, auditor access roles, or a 'show me the state on a given date' answer.
- The frameworks shown are GDPR, UK GDPR, Europrivacy, ISO 27001 and SAPIN 2, with no public information on Swiss nDSG, EU AI Act duties or an update cadence when the law moves.
- No public information on DPIA triggers derived from the record, reusable group templates, or deletion execution tracked against the register.
- No price figure is public; the three published tiers end in 'Ask for a demo' and 'Request a quote from our teams'.
Best for
- You need to plug a privacy platform into an existing estate — Jira tickets, ServiceNow assets, SAP LeanIX applications — over a documented API with SSO and SCIM.
- You are an external DPO or consultancy steering multiple client mandates from one platform.
- Your daily work is data subject rights and breach handling, and you want multi-channel intake, dashboards and an exportable register against the 72-hour duty.
- You operate under GDPR with the CNIL as supervisory authority and value a French-registered vendor with EU-stated hosting and ISO 27001/27701 certification.
Avoid if
- You need public prices to budget before engaging sales — every tier ends in a demo or quote request.
- Your hosting policy rules out US-headquartered providers — the platform runs on Microsoft Azure, within CLOUD Act reach, and its published list names US subprocessors such as Google and Cloudflare.
- You need regimes beyond the frameworks the pages show, such as Swiss nDSG or EU AI Act duties.
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 record of processing is a first-class module built from templates, questionnaires or AI generation, and the data model visibly connects actors, security measures, assets, tasks and incidents — plus the pages explicitly pitch the external DPO steering all their clients as if they had only one, which is my exact practice. I found no public information showing DPIA triggers derived from the record or legal bases driving downstream artifacts, so the linkage stops short of a fully connected legal data model. 2 6 10 12
The In-House Counsel
The Article 30 record built from templates, questionnaires or AI, an asset-and-stakeholder register with data mapping, and a questionnaire platform spanning DPIA, LIA, TIA and retention analyses form a credible core, and external DPOs get genuine multi-client steering rather than copy-paste. I found no public information on legal bases modeled inside the record or DPIA triggers derived from it, so I cannot credit a fully connected data model. 2 6 10 12
The Drafted Generalist
The register is clearly a real module — the Article 30 record can be built from templates, questionnaires or an AI wizard, with a dedicated DPIA module, third-party contract analysis, and a questionnaire library running from legitimate-interest assessments to transfer and retention analyses. What I cannot see is the connective tissue a non-lawyer relies on: we found no public information on whether a risky register entry triggers a DPIA, how legal bases and security measures are modeled as linked objects, or reusable group templates for multi-entity reuse. 6 10 1 2
The Lead Auditor
The record of processing is a living module with templates, questionnaires and an AI wizard, and processing activities, actors and security measures appear as linkable objects with contracts and policies analyzed by AI at the higher tier — the bones of a connected data model. Multi-mandate use is explicit for external DPOs steering all their clients as one, and DPIA, LIA and TIA questionnaires carry the assessment side. I found no public information on DPIA triggers derived from the record or reusable group templates, which keeps this short of a one-model system of record. 1 2 6 10
The IT Integrator
The Art. 30 record is real, with templates, questionnaires and an AI wizard to draft activities, and actors, security measures and processing exist as linked objects files can attach to. DPIA runs as one of a long questionnaire list alongside contract and DPA analytics with AI, and external DPOs steer multiple clients as one. I found no public information on DPIA triggers derived from the record itself or reusable group templates, so it stops short of the fully connected model. 1 2 6 10
The Skeptic
The record of processing, DPIA/LIA/TIA questionnaires and asset/stakeholder registers are all shown as product modules with templates, AI-assisted generation, and a contracts-and-policies feature with AI analytics on the Pro tier; multi-client management for external DPOs is explicitly advertised. We found no public information on processors, TOMs and legal bases living in one connected data model, on DPIA triggers derived from the record itself, or on evidence automation outside the Enterprise tier. 6 10 2 1
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
Request intake is genuinely multi-channel with an automated email parser, no-code forms, a secure portal with requester chat and Jira tracking, and dashboards counting open, overdue and complex requests with average response times; the breach side has an exportable register, configurable deadlines per task, data-subject notification and an exportable activity feed. I found no public information on deletion execution tracking tied to the record of processing, on escalation automation, or on a ready authority-report output, which keeps it short of the end-to-end operational state. 8 9 12 13
The In-House Counsel
The rights side is operational: intake by form, email and API, a no-code widget, a secure response portal without mailbox, and dashboards tracking open, closed and overdue requests; the breach side centralizes an exportable register keyed to Article 33(1) and 33(5) with per-task regulatory deadlines and data-subject notification. I found no public information on identity-check support, an authority-report output, or deletion execution tracked against the record — that gap separates a good register from one I can defend to a supervisory authority. 8 9
The Drafted Generalist
This is the half I care about most and it looks genuinely operational: requests flow in from email, website forms and APIs into a secure portal where I can chat with the requester and watch dashboards for overdue and average response times, and the breach module tracks the 72-hour duty with assignable tasks, an exportable register and notification to affected people. We found no public information on identity verification of requesters, escalation when a deadline slips, or deletion rules wired to the register with proof the deletion actually ran. 9 8 12
The Lead Auditor
Requests arrive through forms, an email parser and APIs with a no-code widget, a secure transfer portal and a requester chat, and the dashboard tracks status, operator and overdue counts — an operational intake rather than a log. The breach side has an exportable register, configurable per-task deadlines against the 72-hour rule, data subject notification and an exportable activity feed. I found no public information on authority-report output generation or deletion execution tied to the register, which is where an audit walk-through would bite. 8 9 13
The IT Integrator
Requests arrive from email, forms and API, a no-code widget handles intake, and a secure portal carries the identification file, with the dashboard tracking overdue, response times and complexity. The breach side documents against the 72-hour duty with an exportable register, per-task configurable deadlines and structured export. I found no public information on deletion rules tied to the record with execution tracking. 8 9
The Skeptic
Rights handling is well evidenced — intake from email, forms and APIs, a no-code request widget, a secure portal, chat with the requester, and dashboards tracking overdue requests and response times — and the breach register covers Article 33(1) and 33(5) duties with per-task deadlines, data-subject notification and API export. We found no public information on escalation automation, on breach severity assessment producing an authority report, or on deletion rules tied to the record with execution tracking; data retention appears only as a questionnaire type. 9 8 10
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
The Enterprise tier carries compliance management with GDPR, Europrivacy, UK GDPR and ISO 27001 as frameworks of choice, and the questionnaire engine spans LIA, DPIA, TIA, retention analyses, SAPIN 2 and multi-compliance packs. I found no public information showing one processing record mapping across regimes, per-country variants, or a documented update cadence, so each regime presents as a content pack rather than a shared data basis. 2 10
The In-House Counsel
GDPR is clearly home ground, with UK GDPR, Europrivacy, ISO 27001 and SAPIN 2 visible as frameworks and multi-compliance questionnaires on the Enterprise tier. I found no public information on Swiss nDSG, ePrivacy or EU AI Act privacy duties, and no documented update cadence — for a product selling legal content, unmaintained content is the risk I price in. 2 10 11
The Drafted Generalist
GDPR is home base and the breadth goes beyond it — UK GDPR, Europrivacy and ISO 27001 appear as framework choices, cookie consent is a module, and the questionnaire set even covers French Sapin 2. But the framework picker sits in the top tier, and we found no public information on Swiss law, EU AI Act duties, per-country variants, or any documented cadence for updates when the law moves. 2 10 11 6
The Lead Auditor
GDPR, UK GDPR, Europrivacy, ISO 27001 and SAPIN 2 appear as selectable frameworks and multi-compliance questionnaires on one system, with a cookie consent module and French-law anchoring for its home market. I found no public information on one-record-many-regimes mapping, per-country variants, Swiss law or AI Act duties, nor on a documented update cadence when the law moves. 2 5 6 10
The IT Integrator
GDPR, UK GDPR, Europrivacy and ISO 27001 appear as framework choices at the Enterprise tier, with SAPIN 2 and multi-compliance questionnaires in the library and a cookie consent module covering the ePrivacy flank. I found no public information on Swiss nDSG or EU AI Act duties, or on a documented update cadence when regimes move. 2 10 11
The Skeptic
GDPR is the core, with UK GDPR, Europrivacy and ISO 27001 offered as the Enterprise-tier framework of choice plus questionnaire types for LIA, TIA, SAPIN 2 and multi-compliance, and a sixteen-template audit referential. We found no public information on one record mapping across regimes without re-documentation, on Swiss nDSG or EU AI Act duties, or on any documented update cadence when the law moves. 2 10 11
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
There is an audit template library of sixteen templates filterable by tag, questionnaire reports that can be validated, published, exported and archived with spider charts and risk matrices, an Enterprise tier advertising evidence automation and custom reporting, and audit logs streaming to a SIEM in real time. Evidence automation is a label without published depth, and I found no public information on revision-safe change history or a defensible state-on-a-given-date answer, so a complete client-ready audit file still needs assembly work. 2 8 10 11 12
The In-House Counsel
Reports can be validated, published, exported and archived with risk matrices, a library of sixteen audit templates, Enterprise-tier evidence automation and real-time audit-log streaming to a SIEM, which is respectable. I found no public information on revision-safe change history, auditor access roles, or an answer to "show me the state on date X", so assembling a full audit file still takes work. 2 10 11 12
The Drafted Generalist
There is a whole audit product here: a library of sixteen templates filterable by tag, spider charts, tables and risk matrices, reports that can be validated, published and exported, "Evidence automation" named as a feature, and audit logs streaming in real time to a SIEM. What I would need before an inspector visits is not shown — we found no public information on revision-safe version history or a way to answer "show me the state on a given date." 10 11 2 12
The Lead Auditor
There is a real audit product here: a 16-template referential library with tag filtering, questionnaire reports that can be validated, published, exported and archived, risk matrices, and audit logs streamed to a SIEM in real time. Evidence automation and custom reporting are named at the top tier. I found no public information on revision-safe change history or point-in-time reconstruction — "show me the state on date X" is the answer these pages do not give. 2 10 11 12
The IT Integrator
Sixteen audit templates filterable by tag, questionnaire reports that validate, publish, export and archive with risk matrices, plus evidence automation and custom reporting at Enterprise. Audit logs stream to a SIEM in real time, which is the trail I want to pull. I found no public information on revision-safe per-record history, auditor access roles, or a defensible answer to the state on a given date. 2 10 11 12
The Skeptic
The audit module shows a full questionnaire lifecycle (consult, validate, publish, review, export, archive) with spider charts, tables and risk matrices, a sixteen-template library filterable by tag, audit logs streaming to a SIEM, and 'Evidence automation' and 'Custom Reporting' named as Enterprise features. Those last two are bullets in a tier list rather than demonstrated capabilities, and we found no public information on revision-safe history answering 'show me the state on date X', audit-scoped evidence packs on demand, or dedicated auditor access roles. 10 11 12 2
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
This is estate-feeding infrastructure: a well-documented REST API built to OpenAPI 3.x, webhooks, SSO with SCIM and IP filtering, and seventeen integrations including Jira for request tracking, ServiceNow assets, SAP LeanIX applications, DocuSign signatures, INSEE lookups and a Zapier bridge to over three thousand apps. Against a top score, I found no public information on escalation paths or AI assistance with a human-review step. 1 12 13
The In-House Counsel
Seventeen native connectors including Jira for rights requests, ServiceNow and SAP LeanIX for assets, DocuSign for processor contracts and an inbound email parser, over a documented OpenAPI 3.x REST API with webhooks, SSO and SCIM — this is a real connector set, not a closed island. AI assistance via any OpenAI-compatible provider exists; I found no public information on escalation automation or human review of AI output. 1 12 13
The Drafted Generalist
Strongest area for someone like me: a documented REST API on the OpenAPI 3.x standard, webhooks, single sign-on with SCIM and IP filtering, and seventeen connectors including Jira for automatic request tracking, ServiceNow and LeanIX for assets, Zapier for three thousand more apps, plus an email parser that files incoming requests automatically. AI can draft the processing activities and I can connect my own AI provider. We found no public information on bidirectional sync across the full data model, so I stop short of the top. 12 13 1 3
The Lead Auditor
Seventeen native integrations sit on a documented OpenAPI 3.x REST API, with webhooks, SSO via SAML/OpenID, SCIM, IP filtering and Zapier reaching over 3000 apps. Assets sync from ServiceNow and SAP LeanIX, Jira feeds request tracking, an email parser pushes requests and processing records in, and tasks carry delegation with configurable deadlines; the AI wizard generates processing activities with any OpenAI-compatible provider. I found no public information on API parity for the full data model or bidirectional estate sync beyond the named connectors. 1 12 13
The IT Integrator
This is what I want to feed: an OpenAPI 3.x documented REST API, webhooks, SSO with SAML and OpenID plus SCIM, Jira automatically creating and tracking DSRs, ServiceNow and SAP LeanIX assets flowing in, INSEE enriching actors, an email parser for intake and Zapier bridging the rest. I found no public information on escalation workflows or HR sources, and no claim of API parity across the whole data model, so it tops out below the infrastructure class. 1 3 12 13
The Skeptic
This one holds up to scrutiny: a REST API documented to OpenApi 3.x/OAS, webhooks, SSO in SAML and OpenID with SCIM, seventeen listed integrations including Jira, ServiceNow and SAP LeanIX, Zapier reach past three thousand apps, an email parser feeding requests and processing, and real-time audit-log streaming to a SIEM. Task delegation is shown; we found no public information on escalation paths or on human-review safeguards around the AI wizard and the bring-your-own AI provider option. 13 12 3 1 10
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
A French SAS registered in Créteil, ISO 27001 and 27701 certified, data stated as hosted in Europe with storage particularly in France, and a published subprocessor list with transfer safeguards is a credible base. The critical hosting chain runs through a US-headquartered provider within CLOUD Act reach, and I found no public information on ownership structure or named data centers. 4 5
The In-House Counsel
A French entity hosting on Azure in the European Union with a published, provider-by-provider subprocessor list and stated ISO 27001/27701 certification is more than a checkbox. But the entire compliance record sits with a US-headquartered provider subject to the CLOUD Act, several listed subprocessors transfer under DPF-plus-SCC safeguards, and I found no public information on a published DPA or on-premises options. 3 4 5
The Drafted Generalist
The vendor is a French company registered in Créteil, my data would sit on Azure in France, and there is a published subprocessor list naming safeguards provider by provider, with ISO 27001 and 27701 certifications on top. But the hosting rests on US-headquartered Microsoft within CLOUD Act reach, several listed subprocessors are US firms, ownership is stated nowhere I can find, and we found no public information on a customer data processing agreement or published technical security measures. 5 4 6
The Lead Auditor
Dastra SAS is a French-registered entity, hosting is on Microsoft Azure with data stated to be stored in the European Union and particularly France, and the privacy policy publishes a named subprocessor list with locations and safeguards. The critical dependency is Microsoft — a US-headquartered provider within CLOUD Act reach — and the published list includes US processors such as Google Analytics, Hubspot and Cloudflare. I found no public information on a customer DPA, published TOMs, or the ownership behind the entity. 4 5
The IT Integrator
French entity, Azure hosting stated in the European Union and particularly France, a published subprocessor list with safeguards, ISO 27001 and 27701, designed and developed in Europe. Microsoft sits under US CLOUD Act reach as the host and the published list includes US processors, so this is EU-default hosting with non-European jurisdictional reach on a critical component. I found no public information on ownership or named data centers. 4 5 8
The Skeptic
Dastra SAS is a French entity with EU hosting in France stated as the default and a published subprocessor list — but that list names Google, Hubspot, Cloudflare, Lusha and others outside the EEA under DPF and SCC safeguards, and the hosting itself is Microsoft Azure, within US CLOUD Act reach. We found no public information on a customer-facing DPA, on the company's ownership, or on on-premises or sovereign-cloud options. 4 5
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
The pricing page names three tiers with user and legal-entity limits and a free trial, but the captured page carries no figures at all — the calls to action are "Ask for a demo" and "Request a quote from our teams". For a consultancy sizing thirty client mandates, the real invoice is entirely a sales conversation. 2 8
The In-House Counsel
The pricing page publishes tier structure, feature allocation, and caps of 150 users and 50 legal entities across Starter, Pro and Enterprise, plus a free trial — but no figure for any tier, and Enterprise is quote-only. A buyer can compare plans in five minutes and still not compute any invoice. 2 8
The Drafted Generalist
Three tiers are named with published limits of 150 users and 50 legal entities, and there is a free trial — but every tier ends in "Request a quote from our teams" or "Ask for a demo", and we found no public prices anywhere. As the person who has to budget this, I can name the plans but cannot compute a single invoice figure from the public pages. 2 8
The Lead Auditor
Plan names, tiered feature lists and the user and legal-entity limits (150 users, 50 entities across all tiers) are public, alongside a free trial. We found no public prices at all: the call to action is "Ask for a demo" and "Request a quote from our teams", so the real invoice is computable only through a sales conversation. 2 8
The IT Integrator
Three named tiers with features and user and entity limits published, plus a free trial, but no prices on the page, with every tier ending in a demo or quote request. Only the trial is free to compute; the real invoice is a sales conversation. 2 8
The Skeptic
Three named tiers with published feature lists and shared limits of 150 users and 50 legal entities are shown, but no figure appears anywhere — the calls to action are 'Ask for a demo' and 'Request a quote from our teams'. A buyer can compare editions but cannot compute any invoice, and we found no public information on setup fees or what sits behind the quote. 2 8
European sovereignty — proven facts
2 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 FR | 3/3 pts | 4 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | US CLOUD Act reach ⚠ unverified | 0/2 pts | 5 Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 17 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 — Data residency. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- Weak sourcing — Subprocessors. The Azure servers are stated to be located in the European Union (and in France per the legal notice), but Microsoft is a US-headquartered provider subject to the US CLOUD Act.
- 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.
- 56 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
- 7 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
- 3 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
- 3 integrations 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 compliance 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 data 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 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
- 1 legal 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 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
Sources (13)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage (EN) www.dastra.eu Checked 17 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Vendor pricing page www.dastra.eu Checked 17 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Features overview www.dastra.eu Checked 17 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Legal notice/imprint www.dastra.eu Checked 17 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Privacy policy www.dastra.eu Checked 17 Sep 2026 Details →
- 6 Security / trust page www.dastra.eu Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 7 Records & DPIA depth — found from sitemap learn.dastra.eu Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Data subject rights & incidents — found from sitemap www.dastra.eu Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Data subject rights & incidents — found from sitemap www.dastra.eu Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap www.dastra.eu Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap www.dastra.eu Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap www.dastra.eu Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap www.dastra.eu Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →