whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Data Protection

Kertos

EU-Made Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: not determined

0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.

by Kertos GmbH · www.kertos.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 In-House Counsel

Weighted verdict

Answers personally when the authority writes. Optimizes for defensibility: request clocks that never slip, a breach workflow that produces the Art. 33 notification, regime coverage that matches where the company actually operates. Rejects tools whose legal content nobody maintains.

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

Scored by The In-House Counsel

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 In-House Counsel

Records of processing, DPIAs, TOMs and transfer impact assessments run on one platform, with automated discovery feeding the record and a vendor register and TOM catalogs alongside. What I could not find is the connected legal data model my files depend on — legal bases on the record, DPIA triggers derived from it, or reusable group templates — so this is more than a basic register but not yet an authority-acceptable core. 6 7 10 12

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 In-House Counsel

Data subject request handling is documented in operational depth — Articles 15 to 19, a 30-day default deadline, per-system execution tasks with automatic status, and API and webhook intake from receipt to confirmation. An incidents module is named, but I found no public information on a 72-hour breach clock, severity assessment, or an output that becomes the Article 33 notification to the authority. 8 10 12 15

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 In-House Counsel

GDPR is deeply operationalized with a dedicated management system and an optional Article 37 data protection officer, and the EU AI Act carries real content — AI inventory, assessment and use-case documentation rather than a roadmap mention. Beyond those the captured pages show security certifications, not privacy regimes: I found no public information on BDSG, Swiss nDSG, UK GDPR or ePrivacy, and no evidence that one processing record maps across regimes. 1 4 10 11

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 In-House Counsel

There is a genuine auditor role — read-only, invitation-based, with company-specific aliases for auditors covering several companies and exclusion from workflow assignment — plus automatic evidence collection that links completed policies to controls. What I could not find is the defensibility core: revision-safe change history or the ability to show the state of the documentation on a given date, so the audit file is not yet a standing state. 12 13

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 In-House Counsel

Over one hundred integrations are claimed, with a documented API reference, webhook documentation for data subject requests, HRIS-driven user provisioning, ticketing and device sync, and monthly discovery scans feeding the registers — the estate feeding the system rather than re-typing. I found no public information on SSO/SCIM or escalation automation, which keeps this short of infrastructure-grade. 8 11 14 15

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 In-House Counsel

The entity is verifiable and German — a GmbH registered at the Munich court with a registration number, offices in Munich and Berlin, and a Made in Germany positioning. But this platform would hold our entire record of processing, and I found no public information on hosting location, a data processing agreement or a subprocessor list, which for our most concentrated processing I cannot defend without. 5 4 11

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 In-House Counsel

I found no public pricing information on any captured page — no edition prices, no module prices, no setup fees, and the optional external data protection officer service is offered without a number. Every real invoice, including the DPO add-on, is a sales conversation; normal for this market, but not computable by a buyer from these pages. 2 10

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

0 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 Kertos? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (15)

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

  1. 1 Vendor homepage www.kertos.io Checked 16 Sep 2026 +1 earlier capture: 15 Sep 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Platform page www.kertos.io Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
  3. 3 GDPR framework page www.kertos.io Checked 16 Sep 2026 +1 earlier capture: 31 Aug 2026 Details →
  4. 4 About page www.kertos.io Checked 16 Sep 2026 +1 earlier capture: 31 Aug 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Imprint www.kertos.io Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Records & DPIA depth — found from sitemap www.kertos.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Records & DPIA depth — found from sitemap www.kertos.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Data subject rights & incidents — found from sitemap docs.kertos.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Data subject rights & incidents — found from sitemap www.kertos.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Privacy regime coverage — found from sitemap www.kertos.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  11. 11 Privacy regime coverage — found from sitemap www.kertos.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  12. 12 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap docs.kertos.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  13. 13 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap www.kertos.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  14. 14 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap docs.kertos.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  15. 15 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap docs.kertos.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →