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 IT Integrator

Weighted verdict

Has to feed the compliance platform from the estate that already exists: Entra ID, Jira, the CMDB. Optimizes for directory import, a real API, webhooks and SSO — compliance data that stays current because it syncs, not because someone retypes it. Rejects data islands with a CSV drawbridge.

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

Scored by The IT Integrator

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 IT Integrator

Records of processing, DPIAs, TOMs and transfer impact assessments are built on one platform, the record of processing is fed by automated tool and data discovery, and vendor management sits beside it — a real register, not a folder tree. The connective depth is unproven though: I found no public information on processing activities linked to legal bases, DPIA triggers derived from the record, or reusable group templates, and the auditor view confirms the modules exist without showing the data model between them. 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 IT Integrator

Request handling is operational: GDPR Articles 15 to 19 request types, a tracked default 30-day due date, per-system execution tasks that gate the status before anything goes to the data subject, staff assignment, tags, attachments, documented ingress API and webhook endpoints, and the stated intake-to-confirmation automation. For the incident side I found no public information on a 72-hour clock, authority-report output or requester identity checks — only a named incident-management module — and deletion is tracked as per-system tasks rather than rules tied to the register. 8 6 10 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 IT Integrator

GDPR is operationalized end to end (RoPA, DPIA, TOM, request automation) and the EU AI Act is a real product surface — AI inventory, AI assessment, AIMS and structured use-case documentation — with NIS2, ISO 27701, TISAX and C5 in the framework list. What holds it back: I found no public information on one record mapping across regimes, on per-country variants, or on UK GDPR, Swiss nDSG or ePrivacy. 1 11 9 6

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 IT Integrator

The auditor experience is engineered, not bolted on: a read-only role covering inventory, compliance, privacy and risk records with evidence, company-specific email aliases when one auditor reviews several companies, and exclusion from owner, approver, policy or training assignments. Automatic evidence collection links finished policies to controls with evidence attached, and vulnerability remediation can be turned into audit evidence. I found no public information on revision-safe change history, audit-scoped evidence packs on demand, or a defensible answer to the state of records on a given date. 12 13 14

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 IT Integrator

Over one hundred integrations, a published API reference, webhook documentation for data subject requests, HRIS connections that add joining users automatically, task sync with ticketing tools, device sync into the asset inventory and monthly discovery scans — this platform syncs with the estate instead of demanding a CSV drawbridge, and a customer reports connecting homegrown software via API in an afternoon. Still, I found no public information naming SSO or SCIM (an Authentication settings tab exists but undescribed), AD or Entra directory import by name, escalation paths, or bidirectional sync — so it sits just under the top bench. 11 15 14 12 10

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 IT Integrator

The entity is firmly European: a Kertos GmbH registered at the Munich court with an HRB number, a German VAT ID, offices in Munich and Berlin, "Made in Germany" claims and EU co-financing. But we found no public information on hosting location or named data centers, a published DPA, or a subprocessor list — the chain under the system that would hold my record of processing is undocumented, and ownership is unverified in these captures. 5 11 7 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 IT Integrator

I found no public pricing information on the captured platform, product and framework pages — no edition or module prices, no user or entity tiers, no billing period, no setup or service fees — so a buyer cannot compute an invoice from public pages alone. 7 11

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 →