Data Protection
ECOMPLY
EU-Made Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 1 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by ECOMPLY GmbH · www.ecomply.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
ECOMPLY is web-based GDPR compliance management software from a Munich-registered German GmbH, aimed at law firms, DSGVO advisors and external data protection officers. The bench scores it highest on audit readiness (5 to 7) and privacy management (5 to 7), crediting a guided audit assistant with automatic gap-analysis reports, automatic change logging exportable for authority inquiries, and a records-of-processing-activities register with automatic risk assessment. Its weakest area is framework coverage (1 to 2): the captured content is GDPR-only even as the marketing courts LGPD consultants. Rights and incidents and integrations and automation both sit at 4 — the judges found no public information on statutory deadline clocks or deletion workflows, and directory connections (LDAP, SAML, SCIM) are gated to the Enterprise tier. The judges genuinely split on privacy management (7 versus 5): one reads the modules as the spine of a multi-client practice, another as linked modules of unverifiable depth. Sovereignty scores 3 to 4, with no public information on default hosting or subprocessors; pricing transparency spans 2 to 5 over concrete published plan caps but no price figures.
Speaks for it
- Guided audit assistant runs prebuilt or custom audits with automatic saving and generates gap-analysis reports reproducible across clients
- Automatic logging of every system event, exportable for clients and authority inquiries
- Records-of-processing-activities register built as a guided form with autosave, change tracking and automatic risk assessment
- Multi-client handling across controllers in one overview, positioned for consultancies and external DPOs
- German GmbH with a verifiable Munich commercial-register entry, plus on-premises and own-cloud hosting options on the Enterprise tier
Held against it
- Everything captured is GDPR-only, with no public information on a second regime despite marketing aimed at LGPD consultants
- The judges found no public information on statutory deadline clocks (one-month, 72-hour), authority-report output, or any deletion workflow in rights and incidents handling
- Directory provisioning (LDAP, SAML, SCIM) and system interfaces sit only on the Enterprise tier, and the judges found no public information on a documented API or webhooks
- The judges found no public information on default hosting location, subprocessors, or a published standard data processing agreement
Best for
- You are an external DPO or consultancy running GDPR audits across many clients and need reproducible audit templates with automatic gap-analysis reports
- You are a German-market SME building a records of processing activities under DSGVO and fit the published caps (up to 99 employees and 2 users on Small Business; up to 400 employees and 10 users on Medium Business)
- You need a standing accountability trail, with every system change logged automatically and exportable for authority inquiries
- You want on-premises or own-cloud hosting for the compliance platform itself and are prepared to buy at the Enterprise tier
Avoid if
- You operate under more than one privacy regime (LGPD, Swiss, UK), since the captured product pages are GDPR-only
- You need live directory or system integrations below the top tier — LDAP, SAML, SCIM and system interfaces are Enterprise-only
- Your organization exceeds the Medium Business caps (10 users, 400 employees, 150 processing activities) and you want to avoid an Enterprise sales conversation
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 records register comes with guided forms, automatic risk assessment and tracked changes, and the module list covers processors, TOMs, DPIA and native client management — the spine I need across thirty mandates. The captured pages place unlimited controllers differently, homepage versus the Enterprise feature list, so I cannot confirm multi-client comes standard. I found no public information on legal bases being modeled or DPIA triggers derived from a record, which is the connectedness that would let one record drive everything. 1 2 3 6 11
The In-House Counsel
The records register is a real structured tool — guided form, automatic saving, tracked changes, automatic risk assessment with color coding, searchable database — with DPIA, TOM and processor modules beside it and multi-client templates for reuse. I found no public information connecting processing activities to legal bases, systems and processors in one data model, which is what makes a register defensible on its face rather than a well-formatted questionnaire. 6 11 2 3
The Drafted Generalist
The records register is a real database — a guided form with autosave, tracked changes, an automatic risk assessment with a color code, and a searchable filter view — and TOMs, processors and a DPIA assistant are all named modules of the same web-based product. But we found no public information showing a processing activity linked to its processors, TOMs and legal bases in one data model, or a DPIA triggered from the record itself, which is what separates tidy modules from a connected system. 1 2 3 6 11
The Lead Auditor
The record of processing activities is a structured, guided register with automatic risk assessment and change tracking, and TOMs, processors and DPIA assistance sit alongside it as modules with multi-client support throughout. The captured pages do not show processing activities linked through to processors, TOMs and legal bases in one model, and we found no public information on legal bases modeling or DPIA triggers derived from the record. 1 3 6 11
The IT Integrator
The record of processing activities is a guided, searchable register with an automatic risk assessment that feeds the gap analysis, and TOM, processor and DPIA modules plus multi-client handling are all listed — a genuinely connected-looking set. We found no public information on legal bases living in the record, DPIA triggers derived from it, or reusable group templates, so the connection stays partly asserted rather than shown. 1 2 3 6 11
The Skeptic
The record of processing activities is a genuine register — guided form, autosave, tracked changes, automatic risk assessment with color coding, search and multi-format export — and processor, TOM and DPIA modules are at least named. But we found no public information on processing activities linked to systems, processors, TOMs and legal bases as one connected data model, on DPIA triggers derived from the record, or on what sits behind the DPIA assistant beyond its plan gating. Linked modules with unverifiable depth, not a connected system of record. 1 2 6 11
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
Requests get categorization, a guided process, quality templates, an archive and an Enterprise delegation assistant; incidents get severity assessment, measures, team involvement and an archive positioned toward management and authorities. I found no public information on the statutory clocks — the one-month and 72-hour deadlines — on automated escalation, or on deletion workflows, which is exactly where an authority audit bites a mandate. 2 8 9
The In-House Counsel
Requests get a guided process, categorization, templates and an archive, and incidents get severity assessment, reporting templates, team involvement and an accountability archive — good bones for both registers. But I found no public information on deadline automation, on the one-month or 72-hour clocks, on authority-report output, or on any deletion concept, so I cannot yet hand the notification duty to this workflow. 8 9 2
The Drafted Generalist
Both halves are genuinely guided: incoming requests get categorized and walked through with templates, tracking and an archive, and incidents get severity assessment, measures, team involvement and an archive framed for authorities, with a delegation assistant on the top plan. But we found no public information on statutory deadline tracking, request intake channels, identity checks, or any deletion workflow — and as the person who forgets deadlines, the clock is the part I need the software to know for me. 1 2 3 8 9
The Lead Auditor
Requests are handled with categorization, a guided process, templates, an archive and — at the Enterprise tier — a delegation assistant, and incidents get severity assessment, measures, templates and an archive framed for management and authorities. We found no public information on statutory deadline tracking (the one-month or 72-hour clocks), authority notification output, or any deletion-concept handling, so nothing in the evidence shows clock-driven workflows. 1 2 8 9
The IT Integrator
Data subject requests get categorization, guidance, templates, an archive and a delegation assistant, and incidents get severity assessment, measures, team involvement and a documented archive — real workflows, not an inbox. We found no public information on statutory deadline clocks, the 72-hour breach clock, an intake portal, authority-report output, or any deletion workflow at all, and that absence is what holds this down. 1 2 3 8 9
The Skeptic
Requests get categorization, templates, status tracking and an archive, and incidents get severity assessment, measures, team involvement and an archive — structure above a bare log. But we found no public information on statutory deadline clocks, on authority-notification output, or on deletion concepts and their execution, which is the operational heart of this criterion; the delegation assistant for requests appears only on the Enterprise plan. 2 8 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
Everything operationalized in the captured pages is GDPR — the German-language records register, DPIA, TOMs and audits. Target sectors include LGPD consultants and the demo booking appears in Portuguese, but I found no public information on LGPD content, nor on BDSG, Swiss or UK variants, so every non-GDPR mandate would be a fresh island. 1 9 11
The In-House Counsel
Everything operational is GDPR: the named audience is DSGVO consultants and every module is framed in German GDPR terms. LGPD consultants and a Portuguese demo booking appear in the marketing, but I found no public information on any second privacy regime being operationalized in the product itself. 11 9 1
The Drafted Generalist
This is a GDPR product for the German market — the pages are all DSGVO and the named target customers are German law firms, advisors and external data protection officers. The only hint of anything beyond is marketing to Brazilian LGPD consultants and a demo button in Portuguese; we found no public information on a second operationalized regime, Swiss or UK law, AI Act duties, or one record mapping across regimes. 1 8 9 11
The Lead Auditor
Everything captured is GDPR — DSGVO-consultant positioning, the register of processing activities, DPIA and TOM modules. Portuguese-language pages and LGPD consultants in the target sectors suggest a Brazil-facing market, but we found no public information on any second regime's content, per-country variants or a documented update cadence, so one regime is what the evidence supports. 1 9 11
The IT Integrator
Everything captured is GDPR: German-market wording, DSGVO consultants and external DPOs as the named audience, and no second regime evidenced in the product content. The Brazilian-facing marketing to LGPD consultants signals interest, but we found no public information on LGPD, Swiss, UK GDPR or AI Act coverage, and no one-record-many-regimes mapping. 1 9 11
The Skeptic
Every captured feature page is GDPR-only in substance, and we found no public information on BDSG, Swiss, UK, ePrivacy or AI Act duties, or on one record mapping across regimes. The pages court Brazilian buyers — LGPD consultants are a listed target sector and the demo call-to-action is in Portuguese — while no LGPD content of any kind is evidenced. 1 9 10
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 audit assistant runs prebuilt and custom audits reproducible across all mandates with automatic gap-analysis reports, and the logbook tracks every change and exports for authority queries — client-ready output I can bill. I found no public information on auditor access roles, on-demand evidence packs, or reconstructing the state at a past date, so the audit file still needs manual assembly. 3 10 11
The In-House Counsel
Automatic logging of every change in the system, exportable for authority queries, plus a guided audit assistant with conditional questions, automatic saving, and gap-analysis reports reproducible across clients — that is a credible accountability trail. I found no public information on audit-scoped evidence packs, auditor access roles, or an answer to the state of the record on a given date. 10 11 3 1
The Drafted Generalist
This is the strongest part for someone like me: a guided audit assistant with prefabricated or own audits, question logic that skips what does not apply, automatic saving, and a generated gap-analysis report, plus automatic logging of every change that can be exported specifically for authority inquiries. What holds it back is that we found no public information on auditor access roles, audit-scoped evidence packs on demand, or reconstructing the state of everything on a past date. 1 2 3 10 11
The Lead Auditor
Automatic logging of every system event, exportable for clients and authority inquiries, plus change tracking on each processing record and an audit assistant that generates reproducible gap-analysis reports as documents — that is a standing trail, not something assembled the week before. We found no public information on audit-scoped evidence packs on demand, auditor access roles, or a way to reconstruct the state on a given date. 1 2 3 6 10 11
The IT Integrator
Change tracking on each record, a logbook that automatically captures all system events and exports for authority inquiries, plus a guided audit assistant producing automatic gap-analysis reports — that is real evidence machinery with document export in pdf, xlsx and docx. We found no public information on auditor access roles or on demonstrating the state of a record at a past date. 1 2 3 10 11
The Skeptic
The audit assistant runs prebuilt or custom audits with conditionally linked questions, automatically saved answers and generated gap-analysis reports reproducible across clients, records track changes over time, and the event log is exportable for authority inquiries. We found no public information on auditor access roles, on-demand evidence packs, or reconstruction of the state on a given date — audit tooling for consultants, not a standing audit-ready state. 1 3 6 10 11
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
SAML, LDAP and SCIM plus interfaces to other systems exist, but only on the Enterprise tier and with no documentation of what those interfaces are; exports come as pdf, xlsx and docx. I found no public information on a documented API, directory import, ticketing connectors or webhooks, so intake across mandates stays manual re-typing. 2
The In-House Counsel
SSO and provisioning via LDAP, SAML and SCIM and interfaces to other systems exist at the Enterprise tier, with reminders, tickets and a delegation assistant carrying the recurring work. I found no public information on a documented API, directory import or live connectors to ticketing, HR or asset sources, so the estate feeds this by hand. 2 3
The Drafted Generalist
Automation inside the tool is real — automatic risk assessment, automatic reports, automatic change logging, reminders — and single sign-on over LDAP, SAML and SCIM plus system interfaces and a data migration service exist, but only on the Enterprise plan. We found no public information on a documented API, live connectors to ticketing or HR systems, webhooks, or directory import below the top tier, so for everyone else the register looks like manual entry. 1 2 6
The Lead Auditor
Named protocol support for LDAP, SAML and SCIM plus "interfaces to other systems" exists, but only on the Enterprise tier, and exchange otherwise runs through file exports in pdf, xlsx and docx. We found no public information on a documented API, directory import below the top tier, or native connectors to ticketing, HR or asset sources; automation amounts to reminders, tasks and the internal risk assessment. 1 2 3
The IT Integrator
The only estate connections shown are LDAP, SAML and SCIM provisioning plus unnamed system interfaces and a data-migration service, all gated to the Enterprise tier, while automation elsewhere is reminders, tickets and a delegation assistant. We found no public information on a documented API or webhooks, so I cannot see how this platform would stay current by syncing from Entra, Jira or a CMDB rather than by retyping. 1 2 3
The Skeptic
Export runs to PDF, Excel and Word, and the Enterprise plan names LDAP, SAML and SCIM plus a bare claim of interfaces to other systems; the automation evidenced elsewhere is tasks, tickets, comments and reminders. We found no public information on a documented API, webhooks, or any named connector, and every live-connection feature sits behind the top tier. 1 2 3
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 Munich-registered GmbH is the right home for the tool that would hold my clients' records registers, and on-premises and own-cloud hosting options exist — both gated to the Enterprise tier. I found no public information on default hosting location, ownership, a published DPA or a subprocessor list, so the chain I would entrust thirty mandates to is undocumented. 2 4
The In-House Counsel
A German GmbH with on-premises or own-cloud hosting and a custom DPA available on the top tier, which is more than most offer. But I found no public information on where the standard hosted instance lives, on ownership, on subprocessors, or on a published DPA and TOMs — and for the platform holding our records of processing, that chain must be documented, not assumed. 4 2
The Drafted Generalist
The company is plainly German — a Munich GmbH with a commercial register entry and a German managing director — and on-premises or own-cloud hosting is offered on the Enterprise plan. But we found no public information on where the standard cloud hosting runs, who the subprocessors are, or a published data processing agreement, and for the system holding my whole compliance record that chain matters as much as the entity. 2 4
The Lead Auditor
The vendor is a German GmbH with a Munich commercial-register entry, and the Enterprise tier offers on-premise hosting, own public cloud hosting and a custom DPA — but on top tiers only. We found no public information on the default hosting location, ownership, a published standard DPA or a subprocessor list, so where the compliance record itself sits and who else touches it is not documented publicly. 2 4
The IT Integrator
A German GmbH with a verifiable Munich registry entry, and on-premises or own-cloud hosting with a custom DPA available on the Enterprise tier — genuinely sovereign options, though only on the top plan. We found no public information on default hosting location, subprocessors, or a public DPA and TOMs, so the chain holding the compliance record itself is largely unverified. 2 4
The Skeptic
The imprint confirms a Munich GmbH with register court, number and VAT ID, and the Enterprise plan offers on-premise hosting, own public cloud hosting and a custom data processing agreement. But we found no public information on default hosting location, data residency, ownership, or a published subprocessor list — for the system that would hold a customer's entire compliance record, the chain underneath it is undocumented. 2 4
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
panel disagrees
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 tier boundaries are unusually precise — employees, users, processing activities, departments, locations and audits per year, plus stated onboarding hours and VAT treatment. I found no public information on actual price figures or billing period, and the Enterprise tier carrying unlimited controllers, on-premises hosting and migration is likewise not publicly priced. 2
The In-House Counsel
The pricing page publishes unusually clear plan boundaries — employee, user, department, location and processing-activity limits, audits per year, included onboarding hours, and VAT stated as excluded. No price figures appear anywhere on the captured pages, so the real invoice remains incomputable from public material alone. 2
The Drafted Generalist
The plan structure is unusually concrete: the two named tiers come with exact caps for employees, users, departments, locations, processing activities and audits per year, plus stated onboarding hours and the note that all prices are quoted excluding VAT. But we found no public information on the actual price figures or the billing period, and the Enterprise tier is a custom conversation, so I cannot say what an 80-employee firm would actually pay. 2
The Lead Auditor
The pricing page publishes fine-grained plan boundaries — users, employees, departments, locations, processing activities, audits per year and included onboarding hours — and states that all prices are plus VAT. The captured facts include no price amounts and no billing period, and the captured pages show no figures for the Enterprise tier that a consultancy needing unlimited controllers would require, so a real total is not computable from what was captured. 2
The IT Integrator
The pricing page publishes unusually concrete plan boundaries — users, employees, processing activities, departments, locations, audits per year and included onboarding hours — and states that all prices exclude VAT, which indicates displayed figures. But no price figures or billing period appear in the captured facts, and we found no public information on Enterprise pricing, so the real invoice is not computable from public information alone. 2
The Skeptic
The tier boundaries are unusually public: employees, users, locations, departments, processing activities and audits per year are capped per plan, onboarding hours are stated, and prices are marked exclusive of VAT. Yet the captured pages include no actual price figures or billing periods, and the Enterprise tier is a sales conversation, so the real invoice is not computable from what is public. 2
European sovereignty — proven facts
1 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 DE | 3/3 pts | 4 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 15 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 compliance on the pages we read (ecomply.io, ecomply.io/de/preise, ecomply.io/de/product, ecomply.io/de/impressum, ecomply.io/de/datenschutzerklarung, ecomply.io/en/features/records-of-processing-activities and 5 more). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- 2 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
Sources (11)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.ecomply.io Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Vendor pricing page www.ecomply.io Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Product page www.ecomply.io Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Imprint www.ecomply.io Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Privacy policy www.ecomply.io Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 6 Records & DPIA depth — found from sitemap www.ecomply.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Records & DPIA depth — found from sitemap www.ecomply.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Data subject rights & incidents — found from sitemap www.ecomply.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Data subject rights & incidents — found from sitemap www.ecomply.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap www.ecomply.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap www.ecomply.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →