Data Protection
DataGrail
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by DataGrail, Inc. · www.datagrail.io
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
DataGrail's strength on the captured pages is connectivity: integrations and automation scores 7-8, built on 2,500+ connectors, agent and agentless access to internal systems, webhooks, and patented detection of systems not connected to SSO. Privacy management sits at a flat 7 — the Live Data Map generates dynamic Article 30 records and pre-populates assessments from the same live data — though we found no public information on technical and organizational measures or legal bases as modeled fields. Sovereignty scores 1-2: the pages name DataGrail, Inc. and U.S. patents but give no public information on hosting jurisdiction, a DPA or a subprocessor list, leaving self-hosting on your own AWS as the one control shown. Rights and incidents runs 4-6 — request handling is well evidenced, but we found no public information on a breach register, the 72-hour clock or Article 33 notification output. That spread reflects weighting of the missing incident half, not disputed facts; no criterion diverged by more than two points. Framework coverage and audit readiness hold mid-band at 5-6, and no prices appear on any captured page.
Speaks for it
- Integrations and automation leads at 7-8: 2,500+ connectors, agent and agentless access to internal systems, webhooks, and patented detection of systems not connected to SSO
- Privacy management sits at 7 throughout — the Live Data Map generates dynamic Article 30 records from systems, data categories, purposes and vendors, with assessments pre-populated from that same data
- Request handling is end to end: branded intake forms, patented Smart Verification, automated GDPR and California 45-day deadlines, and deletion that tracks statutory exceptions across systems and vendors
- Audit tooling is evidenced: full audit logging, a Risk Register organized for inquiries under Articles 24, 31 and 58, and RoPA exports as complete or filtered CSV or PDF
- The Vera AI agent acts only with human approval, never trains on customer data, and runs its model in a separate environment with no access to the outside internet
Held against it
- Sovereignty scores 1-2 — the captured pages give no public information on hosting jurisdiction, a DPA or a subprocessor list, with legal entity jurisdiction, ownership, data residency and subprocessor exposure all unknown
- We found no public information on a breach register, the 72-hour authority clock or Article 33 notification output, holding rights and incidents at 4-6
- Framework coverage is US-heavy — EU GDPR, CCPA, the Delete Act, Colorado and Virginia are the regimes shown, with no public information on UK GDPR, Swiss or German law, ePrivacy or EU AI Act privacy duties
- We found no public information on revision-safe change history, auditor access roles or reconstructing a record's state on a past date, so audit readiness caps at 5-6
- We found no public information on SSO or SCIM support or ticketing and HR connectors, and the API is described as available in certain DataGrail plans
Best for
- You need Article 30 records generated from a live data map, with assessments pre-populated from your real systems and vendors
- You handle high DSR volume and want automated intake, identity verification, deadline tracking and deletion orchestration across 2,500+ apps
- Your scope is GDPR plus US state law, especially California — the pages track the Delete Act's 45-day cycle and the January 1, 2027 deletion-right change
Avoid if
- Your obligations extend beyond GDPR to UK GDPR, Swiss or German law, ePrivacy or EU AI Act privacy duties — the regimes shown are EU GDPR and US laws
- You must see hosting jurisdiction, a DPA and a subprocessor list before signing — the only jurisdictional control shown is opting to host your privacy data on your own AWS, and sovereignty scores 1-2
- You need breach workflows — a register, the 72-hour authority clock, Article 33 output — alongside request handling; rights and incidents scores run 4 to 6
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 Live Data Map builds a dynamic Article 30 record linking systems, data categories, purposes and vendors, and DPIAs/PIAs are pre-populated from that same processing data rather than from blank questionnaires — a genuinely connected model that also feeds privacy notices and vendor assessments under Articles 28 and 32. But we found no public information on TOMs, legal bases, DPIA triggers derived from the record, or reusable group templates, which my mandates need; multi-brand support from a single instance is the closest thing to group handling. 3 4 2
The In-House Counsel
The record of processing is genuinely generated from a live data map that links systems, data categories, purposes and vendors, with assessments pre-populated from that same data — that connected model is what I want to hand a supervisory authority. However, I found no public information on how legal bases or technical and organizational measures are modeled, nor on DPIA triggers derived from the record or reusable group templates, so I cannot treat the records as a complete system of record. 3 4 7
The Drafted Generalist
The records of processing basically build themselves: the live data map connects systems, vendors, purposes and data categories into dynamic Article 30 registers, and DPIAs come pre-populated with real system and vendor data instead of a blank questionnaire — that is exactly the software-knows-the-law experience I need. Vendor and subprocessor assessments are tied to the GDPR articles too. I found no public information on managing TOMs or legal bases inside the system, or reusable group templates, which keeps it short of a fully connected register. 3 4 2
The Lead Auditor
The RoPA is genuinely connected: the Live Data Map auto-maps systems, data categories, purposes and vendors into dynamic Article 30 records, assessments come pre-populated with that same data, and vendor and subprocessor assessments hang off it with multi-brand support from one instance. I found no public information on TOMs or legal bases as modeled objects, on DPIA triggers derived from the record, or on multi-client mandate capability. 3 4 2 7
The IT Integrator
This is a genuinely connected model — the live data map feeds Article 30 records from systems, data categories, purposes and vendors, and assessments are pre-populated from that same data instead of retyped, which is exactly how it should work. But we found no public information on TOMs management, legal bases modeled in the record, or reusable group and multi-client templates, so I stop below the top band. 3 4 7
The Skeptic
The record of processing is generated from a live map that links systems, data categories, purposes and vendors, and assessments are pre-populated from that same data — a genuinely connected model rather than a questionnaire with templates. But I found no public information on technical and organizational measures management, legal bases as modeled fields, or DPIA triggers derived from the record, so the connection is strong where discovery drives it and undocumented where the legal artifacts get legal. 3 4 7
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 Manager is strong on the rights half: branded intake forms, patented Smart Verification, automated 45-day and Article 12 clocks, deletion orchestrated with statutory exceptions tracked across systems and vendors, and even request-frequency limits per consumer. We found no public information on breach management at all — no breach register, no 72-hour authority-notification output — and that is half of what I bill against, so it cannot score above mid-range. 7 3 5
The In-House Counsel
Request handling is strong: branded intake forms, patented identity verification, automated Article 12(3) clocks, and deletion orchestration that tracks statutory exceptions across connected systems. But half of this criterion is breach management, and I found no public information on a breach register, the 72-hour clock, or an Article 33 notification workflow — for me that gap caps the score regardless of how good the rights side is. 3 5 7
The Drafted Generalist
Request handling looks genuinely end to end — branded intake forms, identity verification support, automated deadlines for both the GDPR clock and the California 45-day clock, and deletion that executes across connected systems with statutory exceptions tracked. That half earns top marks. But I found no public information on a breach register, the 72-hour authority notification, or any incident workflow, which is the half that would keep me up at night. 3 7 5 2
The Lead Auditor
The rights half is strong: branded intake forms, patented Smart Verification, automated statutory deadlines, and deletion orchestrated across 2,500+ systems with statutory exceptions tracked. But this criterion is rights and incidents, and I found no public information on a breach register, the 72-hour authority clock, or an Article 33 notification output — the entire incident half is unevidenced. 3 5 7
The IT Integrator
The rights half looks operational — branded intake forms, identity verification, deadline automation, and deletion orchestration that propagates across the connected estate and tracks statutory exceptions per system and vendor. We found no public information on a breach register, the 72-hour authority clock, or evidence that a deletion actually executed, which is half this criterion left unevidenced. 3 5 7
The Skeptic
The request side is well evidenced: branded intake forms, a patented Smart Verification step, automated statutory deadlines, and deletion orchestration that tracks exceptions across systems and vendors. The incident side is entirely absent — I found no public information on a breach register, the 72-hour clock, or authority notification output, and I award points only for what the pages evidence, which caps this well below the request machinery's own quality. 3 5 7 9
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
GDPR plus broad US coverage — CCPA/CPRA, the Colorado and Virginia laws, the Delete Act and all US privacy laws — run off one data map, with the same modules mapped to both GDPR articles and CCPA sections, and the CCPA pages track live regulatory dates like the August 2026 Delete Act milestones. We found no public information on UK GDPR, Swiss nDSG, BDSG or ePrivacy, and nothing on EU AI Act privacy duties beyond a solutions-page label, which matters for my European mandates. 9 3 7 6
The In-House Counsel
The captured pages show GDPR, CCPA/CPRA, the California Delete Act, Colorado and Virginia laws on one data map, with more than twenty privacy laws claimed for the AI agent — and the California content shows real maintenance, documenting the 45-day DROP cadence and the January 2027 deletion change. I found no public information on UK GDPR, Swiss nDSG, German BDSG, ePrivacy or EU AI Act duties, and no per-country variants, so for a company operating in Europe this reads as a US-first map with GDPR attached. 2 6 9
The Drafted Generalist
One data map powers both the GDPR records and the California disclosures, and the captured pages track the law moving — the 2027 deletion-right expansion and the Delete Act's 45-day cycle are already worked into the product — which is the maintenance behavior I want to see. Coverage leans heavily American, though: GDPR plus many US state laws. I found no public information on UK GDPR, Swiss or German variants, ePrivacy or AI Act duties. 9 6 3 2
The Lead Auditor
GDPR and the US stack (CCPA/CPRA, Colorado, Virginia, and the Delete Act with its 45-day DROP cycle) are operationalized from one Live Data Map, and the California pages visibly track regime changes with effective dates. Coverage tilts heavily US — I found no public information on UK GDPR, BDSG or Swiss nDSG — and AI Act and ePrivacy duties appear, if at all, as a solution-listing label with no privacy-duty depth shown. 9 6 3
The IT Integrator
GDPR plus a deep, visibly maintained California practice (Delete Act and the 2027 deletion-right change) driven off one data map that powers both Article 30 records and CCPA disclosures — one-record-many-regimes is real. We found no public information on UK GDPR, Swiss law, ePrivacy or AI Act privacy duties beyond an AI Governance page name, so European breadth beyond GDPR is unproven. 5 6 9
The Skeptic
GDPR and the US state-law stack are covered with real depth, including Delete Act automation and visibly tracked regulatory updates for 2026-27, and the same data inventory feeds both Article 30 records and CCPA disclosures. We found no public information on UK GDPR, Swiss law, ePrivacy or EU AI Act privacy duties, so the breadth claim rests on 'many more' and '20+ privacy laws' language rather than named regimes. 5 6 9
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
The Risk Register centralizes risks, mitigations and compliance evidence for audits and regulatory inquiries, RoPA exports come out as audit-ready CSV or PDF, and there is full audit logging with role-based access control and a detailed trail of every Vera data request. We found no public information on revision-safe version history, audit-scoped evidence packs on demand, or reconstruction of the state on a given date, so a client-ready file is not a standing state. 2 3 4 7
The In-House Counsel
There is a centralized risk register positioned for audits and regulatory inquiries under Articles 24, 31 and 58, full audit logging including every AI-agent data request, and audit-ready records of processing exportable as filtered CSV or PDF. I found no public information on revision-safe change history, audit-scoped evidence packs on demand, auditor access roles, or reconstruction of the state on a given date, so assembling a defensible audit file still looks like manual work. 2 3 4
The Drafted Generalist
The records of processing export as audit-ready CSV or PDF, there is a full audit log for internal or external reviews, and the risk register keeps documentation and compliance evidence centralized for investigations. What I could not find is the harder proof: revision-safe history — showing a regulator the state on a past date — or dedicated auditor access roles, so assembling a defensible file may still take days of my calendar. 4 2 3 7
The Lead Auditor
There is a Risk Register that keeps compliance documentation organized for audits and regulatory inquiries, full audit logging including a detailed log of every AI-agent action, and audit-ready RoPA exports as complete or filtered CSV and PDF. What I actually audit for — revision-safe record history, audit-scoped evidence packs, and a defensible answer to showing the state on a given date — I found no public information on, and access control stops at general role-based restriction. 2 3 4 7
The IT Integrator
Full audit logging, a risk register that keeps evidence organized for investigations, and audit-ready Article 30 exports in CSV or PDF are solid mid-band proof. We found no public information on revision-safe point-in-time reconstruction, auditor-scoped evidence packs, or dedicated auditor access roles beyond general role-based access, so a full authority file likely still needs assembly by hand. 2 3 4 7
The Skeptic
Full audit logging, a risk register that centralizes evidence for regulatory inquiries under Articles 24, 31 and 58, and audit-ready Article 30 exports in CSV or PDF are all evidenced. I found no public information on revision-safe change history, auditor access roles, or a defensible answer to 'show me the state on date X' — so assembling a complete audit file still looks like manual work. 2 3 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
This is the estate-connectivity champion: 2,500-plus pre-built connectors, agent or agentless connection to internal systems, patented detection of systems outside SSO, webhooks, no-code multi-step workflow automations, mobile SDKs, and the Vera agent acting with human control — the toil this removes is real review hours across mandates. The gaps are narrow but present: we found no public information on SSO or SCIM specifically, and the API is available in certain DataGrail plans, which I read as plan-gated. 1 2 8 9
The In-House Counsel
This is the platform's strongest suit: more than 2,500 pre-built connectors, agent and agentless connection to internal systems, patented detection of systems outside SSO, webhooks, no-code multi-step workflows, a plan-restricted API with technical documentation, and an AI agent that acts only with human approval and never trains on customer data. The items I could not verify from the public pages are SSO/SCIM support and delegation or escalation within workflows. 1 2 9
The Drafted Generalist
This is the standout: 2,500-plus connectors, a documented API, webhooks, agent or agentless connections into internal systems, and patented detection that finds systems nobody declared — the map and the records fill themselves instead of me re-typing spreadsheets. The AI agent acts only with human control and every action lands in an audit log, which is the review I would insist on. Mild cautions: the API is gated to certain plans, and I found no public information on SSO or SCIM. 9 2 8 4 1
The Lead Auditor
This is the platform's strongest suit: 2,500+ pre-built connectors fueling system discovery, agent and agentless connection to internal systems, webhooks, a documented API (plan-restricted), no-code multi-step workflows, and an AI agent acting under human control with every action logged. Directory synchronization shows only indirectly — patented detection finds systems "even when they aren't connected to SSO" — and I found no public information on SSO/SCIM specifics or workflow delegation and escalation detail. 2 8 9
The IT Integrator
The strongest story here for someone who feeds compliance from the estate that already exists: 2,500+ pre-built connectors including internal systems via agent or agentless modes, webhooks, patented system detection that finds systems even when they are not connected to SSO, no-code multi-step workflows, and an AI agent that only takes approved, logged actions. The API is tied to certain plans and we found no public information on SCIM or directory sync, which keeps it short of infrastructure-grade. 2 8 9
The Skeptic
2,500+ connectors with a stated purpose of system discovery, a plan-gated API, webhooks, agent and agentless connections to internal systems, and an AI agent whose actions require human approval and are fully logged — the substance behind the automation claims checks out. We found no public information on SSO/SCIM or ticketing and HR connectors, so the estate integration story is broad on consumer applications and quiet on enterprise plumbing. 1 2 9
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
For a system that would hold my clients' most concentrated processing record, the captured pages give no public information on entity jurisdiction, hosting default or subprocessor exposure, and we found no published DPA or subprocessor list — only a Trust Center link. The one genuine comfort is the option to host your privacy data on your own AWS, the only jurisdictionally clean path on these pages. 2 9
The In-House Counsel
I found no public information on the vendor's entity jurisdiction, data residency, ownership, or a published DPA and subprocessor list, and the captures show a US-incorporated company holding US patents and marketing a California-centered program — a platform that maps your processing is itself your most concentrated processing, so that matters. The one countervailing fact is an option to self-host the privacy data on your own AWS, which earns a single point. 2 8
The Drafted Generalist
The compliance record of my entire company would sit with a vendor whose jurisdiction, default hosting region, subprocessors and data processing agreement I found no public information on — the copyright names DataGrail, Inc., a US-style entity, and the rest stays dark. The one real reassurance is the option to host the data on your own AWS in a single-tenant setup, but that is control I would have to actively take, not a European chain that is clean by default. 2 9
The Lead Auditor
The vendor is DataGrail, Inc., holding U.S. patents and speaking to California law as its center of gravity, and I found no public information in these captures on hosting region, a DPA, or a subprocessor list. Self-hosting on the customer's own AWS with single-tenant architecture is a real mitigation lever, but it is an option, not a European chain. 2 8 9
The IT Integrator
The vendor is a U.S. Inc. with U.S. patents, and the only residency control I can see is an option to host in your own AWS alongside single-tenant architecture. We found no public information on EU hosting defaults, a published DPA, or a subprocessor list — for the platform that would hold my records of processing, that scores near the floor. 2 8 9
The Skeptic
The vendor signs its pages as a US corporation, and beyond a single-tenant architecture and an option to self-host on your own AWS, I found no public information on hosting jurisdiction, a DPA, or a subprocessor list — the Trust Center link exists but its contents were not captured. A platform that maps your processing lives, on this record, in a chain nobody has documented publicly. 2 8 9
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
We found no public prices at all — no editions, no numbers, no billing period — so every configuration is a sales conversation and no client can budget from these pages. The only pricing-adjacent statement anywhere is that the API is available in certain DataGrail plans, plans whose prices are not published. 2
The In-House Counsel
I found no public information on edition prices, module costs, or user and entity boundaries; the only pricing-relevant statement in the captures is that the API is available in certain plans, and even the free tools library carries no edition numbers. That makes the real invoice a sales conversation, which is the market norm here but worth stating plainly for a buyer. 2
The Drafted Generalist
There are no public prices anywhere — no edition numbers, no per-module pricing, no setup fees — and the API itself is only available in certain plans, so the real invoice is unknowable without a sales conversation. Managed Services are offered as an expert pairing, but nothing on the captured pages tells me what the software or the services cost. 2 9
The Lead Auditor
No price figure appears anywhere in the captured pages — not an entry edition, not module pricing, not the Managed Services pairing. The API note "available in certain DataGrail plans" is the only evidence editions exist at all, so the real invoice is not computable from public information. 2
The IT Integrator
We found no public prices on any captured page: plan tiers are referenced (the API is available in certain plans) and managed services with an expert pairing exist, but no edition, module or service carries a number. The real invoice is not computable from public information, so this sits at the bottom by definition. 2 9
The Skeptic
We found no public pricing on any captured page — no plan prices, no module prices, no setup fees, no billing period. The API is described as available in certain plans and Managed Services is sold as an offering, so editions and services demonstrably exist, but none of them carries a number a buyer could use. 2 9
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 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 | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 22 Sep 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- 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.
- We found no public information on pricing on the pages we read (datagrail.io, datagrail.io/platform, datagrail.io/solutions/gdpr-general-data-protection-regulation-compliance, datagrail.io/solutions/record-of-processing-activities, datagrail.io/solutions/dsar-software, datagrail.io/ccpa-california and 3 more). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- 3 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
- 2 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
- 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
Sources (9)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.datagrail.io Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Privacy policy — found from the homepage www.datagrail.io Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Security / trust page — found from the homepage www.datagrail.io Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Records & DPIA depth — found from sitemap www.datagrail.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Data subject rights & incidents — found from sitemap www.datagrail.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Privacy regime coverage — found from sitemap www.datagrail.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Privacy regime coverage — found from sitemap www.datagrail.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap www.datagrail.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap www.datagrail.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →