whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Data Protection

Dastra

EU-Made Report an error

Panel 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 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 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

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 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

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, 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Report an error

Pricing transparency not rated — the vendor publishes no price

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

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

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

2 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 US CLOUD Act reach ⚠ unverified 0/2 pts 5 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 Dastra? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (13)

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

  1. 1 Vendor homepage (EN) www.dastra.eu Checked 17 Sep 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Vendor pricing page www.dastra.eu Checked 17 Sep 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Features overview www.dastra.eu Checked 17 Sep 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Legal notice/imprint www.dastra.eu Checked 17 Sep 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Privacy policy www.dastra.eu Checked 17 Sep 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Security / trust page www.dastra.eu Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Records & DPIA depth — found from sitemap learn.dastra.eu Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Data subject rights & incidents — found from sitemap www.dastra.eu Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Data subject rights & incidents — found from sitemap www.dastra.eu Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap www.dastra.eu Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  11. 11 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap www.dastra.eu Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  12. 12 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap www.dastra.eu Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  13. 13 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap www.dastra.eu Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →