whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Data Protection

ECOMPLY

EU-Made Report an error

Panel 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 Skeptic

Weighted verdict

Hunts certification logos that link nowhere, "AI-powered" features with no substance behind them, consulting bundled as software, legal-update promises with no named lawyer, and customer counts that disagree between pages. Exists to keep the rest of the bench honest.

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

Scored by The Skeptic

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

1 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 — uncited Report an error
Subprocessors Not determined — uncited Report an error

Where this could be wrong

What we left out

A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.

Do you know more about ECOMPLY? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (11)

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

  1. 1 Vendor homepage www.ecomply.io Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Vendor pricing page www.ecomply.io Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Product page www.ecomply.io Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Imprint www.ecomply.io Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Privacy policy www.ecomply.io Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Records & DPIA depth — found from sitemap www.ecomply.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Records & DPIA depth — found from sitemap www.ecomply.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Data subject rights & incidents — found from sitemap www.ecomply.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Data subject rights & incidents — found from sitemap www.ecomply.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap www.ecomply.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  11. 11 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap www.ecomply.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →