Data Protection
Keyed DSMS
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 Keyed GmbH · keyed.de
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
Keyed, a German data protection management software from Keyed GmbH, developed in Münster, pairs GDPR tooling, a separate AI Act module and legal consulting. Its strongest ground is audit readiness, scored 6-7: recurring audits at configurable intervals with results stored on the object, communication logged and versioned, and a report generator spanning every core register. Privacy management runs 6-7, with records generatable from an existing impact assessment and group inheritance. Weakest is integrations and automation at 2-4, where the automation shown runs inside the tool, single sign-on appears only in the Enterprise tier, and we found no public information on an API or directory import. Rights and incidents scores 4-5: breach tasks carry the 72-hour obligation with daily notifications, but we found no public information on request intake, identity checks or authority-report output. Splits stay within two points; framework coverage ranges 3-5, with the AI Act delivered as its own product rather than one record across regimes. Sovereignty sits flat at 4: a stated "100% EU-Server" claim, with no public information on a data processing agreement, subprocessors or ownership.
Speaks for it
- Audits recur on configurable intervals, with the system creating the task, storing the result on the object, and logging and versioning all communication.
- Period reports cover every core register for a chosen period, in a custom layout with group-wide reporting levels.
- A record of processing can be generated from an existing impact assessment, with inheritance across group companies.
- Breach tasks carry the 72-hour reporting obligation, with daily notifications to the responsible person and the DPO until completion.
- Software pricing is published for three tiers — "0 € monatlich", "Ab 99 € monatlich", "Ab 299 € monatlich" — with company limits stated.
Held against it
- We found no public information on an API, directory import, webhooks or ticketing connectors, and single sign-on appears only in the Enterprise tier.
- Rights and breach handling show reminders and linked tasks, with no public information on request intake, identity checks or an authority-report output.
- The AI Act is delivered as a separate product rather than one record mapped across regimes, with no public information on national variants for a stated D-A-CH customer base.
- We found no public information on a data processing agreement, a subprocessor list, named data centers or ownership.
- The captured pages give different figures for effort reduction — 50% less effort, up to 70%, and up to 50% time savings.
Best for
- You need recurring, system-driven GDPR audits whose results persist on the object and feed period reports across every core register.
- You manage privacy for a group of up to three companies and rely on inheritance and group-wide reporting levels.
- You advise multiple clients and want period reports in a custom layout spanning registers, TOMs, impact assessments and breaches.
- You want GDPR and EU AI Act capability from a single German vendor, accepting the AI Act as its own product.
Avoid if
- Your compliance work depends on feeding the tool from an existing IT estate — integrations and automation scored 2-4, the evidenced automation runs inside the tool, and single sign-on sits behind the Enterprise tier.
- You must defend end-to-end data subject request handling before an authority — rights and incidents scored 4-5, and the evidence shown is reminders and module names rather than an intake-to-output workflow.
- You operate under regimes beyond GDPR and the EU AI Act — framework coverage scored 3-5, and the captured pages evidence two regimes despite a stated D-A-CH customer base.
- Your procurement cannot sign without a published data processing agreement and subprocessor list — sovereignty scored a flat 4, and the judges' warnings center on that undocumented chain.
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
Records, impact assessments, TOMs, data recipients and Article 28 processing all live in one help-documented system, a record of processing can even be generated from an existing impact assessment, and group inheritance exists for reuse across company structures. We found no public information on legal bases being linked in the data model or on DPIA triggers derived from the record, so the RoPA does not yet visibly drive the rest. 7 8 10
The In-House Counsel
The register and the impact assessment are real linked modules — a record of processing can be generated from an existing impact assessment, Art. 28 processing, TOMs and data recipients are managed as objects, and inheritance is a named feature rather than copy-paste. What I cannot confirm: I found no public information on how legal bases are modeled or whether DPIA triggers derive from the record itself, so the connected data model stays partly asserted. 7 8 10
The Drafted Generalist
VVT, DSFA, TOMs, data recipients, Art. 28 processing and storage locations are all named modules, a VVT can be created directly from an existing DPIA, and inheritance handles group reuse rather than copy-paste. But we found no public information on legal bases being modeled or on how deeply activities connect to processors and TOMs, and TOM creation is described as manual. 7 8 10
The Lead Auditor
The register, impact assessments, TOMs, data recipients and Article 28 processing all exist as modules, and a record can be generated from an existing impact assessment, which is more than parallel checklists. The inheritance module suggests group reuse beyond copy-paste, but the captured pages read as help-article titles, and we found no public information on records linked to systems and legal bases or on DPIA triggers derived from the record. 7 8 10
The IT Integrator
Records of processing, DPIAs, TOMs, Art. 28 arrangements and data recipients all exist as modules, a VVT can be generated from an existing DPIA, and inheritance carries templates and resources across group companies — a connected core with lawyer-drafted templates, not a folder tree. We found no public information on legal-basis modeling or DPIA triggers derived automatically from the record, which is what separates this tier from the top band. 7 8 10
The Skeptic
The help center confirms genuine modules for records of processing, impact assessments, TOMs and data recipients, with records generatable from an existing impact assessment and an inheritance feature for groups — better than copy-paste. But the evidence is mostly help-article titles: we found no public information on legal bases linked in the record model, DPIA triggers derived from the record, or outputs a supervisory authority has accepted, so the depth of the connections stays unevidenced. 7 8 10
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
A breach register that takes the 72-hour obligation seriously — daily notifications to the responsible person and the DPO until the task is completed — plus data subject requests and a deletion concept as modules, all covered by the report generator. We found no public information on intake channels, identity checks, breach severity assessment or authority-report output, so this stays reminder-driven rather than end-to-end. 8 9 10
The In-House Counsel
The breach side has a defensible outline: a documented breach task under the 72-hour reporting obligation, with daily notifications to the responsible person and the DPO until closure, and requests, breaches and the deletion concept appear as modules. Beyond module names I found no public information on request intake channels, the Article 12 clock, identity checks, an authority notification output, or any execution tracking for the deletion concept — so the workflow I would have to defend in an authority audit is not evidenced. 8 9 10
The Drafted Generalist
Data subject requests, breaches and a deletion concept are named modules, and breach tasks carry the 72-hour obligation with daily notifications to the responsible person and the DPO until the task is done. We found no public information on intake channels, identity checks, authority-report output, or deletion execution tracking — the automation shown is reminders and linked tasks. 8 9 10
The Lead Auditor
Data subject requests, breaches and a deletion concept are named as full modules, and breach handling shows a genuine 72-hour reflex: the responsible person and the DPO receive daily notifications until the task is done. The automation on display is reminders and linked tasks rather than deadline engines, and we found no public information on intake forms, identity checks, severity assessment, an authority-report output, or evidence that deletions are executed and tracked. 8 9 10
The IT Integrator
Data breach tasks run against the 72-hour reporting obligation with daily notifications to the responsible person and the DPO until closure, external communication is managed with linked tasks, and a deletion concept module is claimed in the full DSMS coverage. We found no public information on request intake channels, identity-check support, authority-report output or deletion execution tracking, so this reads as clocks-and-reminders rather than end-to-end operations. 8 9 10
The Skeptic
Data subject requests and a deletion concept appear only as names in a coverage list, while external communications get linked tasks with reminders and breach tasks trigger daily notifications tied to the 72-hour duty — clock awareness via reminders, not deadlines automated end to end. We found no public information on request intake channels, identity checks, breach severity assessment, authority-report output, or any evidence that deletion rules are executed and tracked rather than documented. 8 9 10
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 is the operating basis and the AI Act appears as a separate AI management module with its own audit template — newer duties are present, but as their own island rather than one record mapped across regimes. For a D-A-CH practice we found no public information on the Swiss nDSG, BDSG or other national variants, or on per-country customization. 3 1 4 10
The In-House Counsel
The product is GDPR plus the EU AI Act, the latter delivered as a separate AI management software with its own audit template — an island, not a shared record. The stated market is the D-A-CH region, and I found no public information on German, Austrian or Swiss national variants or on one record mapping across regimes. 3 1 10
The Drafted Generalist
GDPR is the core and the AI Act is visibly operationalized through AI management software, an AI-system audit template and an external AI officer service. Beyond DSGVO and KI-VO the pages are silent: we found no public information on BDSG or Swiss nDSG variants despite a D-A-CH customer base, nor on one record mapping across regimes. 3 1 4 10
The Lead Auditor
GDPR is the base and the AI Act is genuinely operational, with AI systems appearing as auditable objects carrying their own template. We found no public information on BDSG, Swiss or UK variants or any one-record-many-regimes mapping, so for a vendor whose stated market is the D-A-CH region the captured pages evidence two regimes rather than a coverage product. 3 4 10
The IT Integrator
GDPR and the EU AI Act are both operationalized — AI systems even get their own audit template — and the customer base is D-A-CH, but we found no public information on BDSG specifics, Swiss nDSG, UK GDPR or a one-record-many-regimes mapping. Two regimes sharing one documentation base is more than a single hard-coded checklist, less than living multi-regime coverage. 3 1 4 10
The Skeptic
GDPR is the operational core, and the AI Act appears as a separate AI-management product plus its own audit template — a second island, not one record mapped across regimes. We found no public information on national variants, Swiss or UK regimes, or any documented update cadence when the law moves. 3 1 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
This is where I see real consulting leverage: recurring audits at configurable intervals with the result documented and persisted at the object, group-wide audit control with different reporting levels, communication logged and versioned, and a report generator covering every core register with custom client branding. We found no public information on auditor access roles or a point-in-time state export, which is what keeps it short of audit readiness as a standing state. 10 11
The In-House Counsel
This is the strongest part of the file: audits scope to a whole company, a unit, a data recipient as a transfer impact assessment, an asset or an AI system; intervals recur automatically with the result stored on the object; risk and conformity audits draw on the same documentation and all communication is logged and versioned, with lawyer-maintained templates answering my rule that legal content nobody maintains is worthless. What holds it back: I found no public information on auditor access roles or a defensible reconstruction of the state on a given date. 8 10
The Drafted Generalist
Risk and conformity audits draw on the same documentation, audit communication is logged and versioned, recurring cycles document their results at the object itself, and the report generator covers every core register for a chosen period with custom layout, group-wide with reporting levels. We found no public information on auditor access roles or on reconstructing the state on a past date, which is what standing audit readiness would need. 8 10
The Lead Auditor
Audits run on configurable cycles where the system reminds, creates the task and keeps the result at the object, communication during an audit is logged and versioned, and reports can be composed per period across every register with custom export templates. Group-wide steering with reporting levels and lawyer-supplied templates indicate the audit trail is native rather than assembled the week before. We found no public information on auditor access roles, general revision-safety of the registers, or reconstructing the state on a specific date. 8 10 11
The IT Integrator
Audits recur on configurable intervals with the system creating the task and persisting the result at the object, communication is logged and versioned, risk matrix and conformity scores draw on the same documentation, and period reports with custom layout cover VVT, TOMs, DPIAs, breaches and audits with group-wide reporting levels. We found no public information on audit-scoped evidence packs or auditor access roles, which keeps it short of a standing audit state. 8 10 11
The Skeptic
This is the best-evidenced part of the product: risk audits ending in a risk matrix, conformity audits with a per-chapter score, templates from the vendor's own lawyers or custom-built, configurable recurrence with results persisting on the object, group-wide control with reporting levels, and period reports spanning every core register in a custom layout. The versioning claim, however, covers audit communication specifically; we found no public information on revision-safe change history across all records, auditor access roles, or a defensible answer to 'show me the state on date X'. 8 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
Automation is reminders, recurring audit tasks and an automated risk assessment — genuine, but internal to the tool; SSO appears only at the enterprise tier and documents export in multiple formats. We found no public information on an API, directory import, ticketing or HR connectors or webhooks, so the real IT estate still gets re-typed. 1 8 9 10
The In-House Counsel
The automation I can see is reminders and recurrence — daily breach notifications, automatically generated recurring audit tasks, an automated risk assessment — plus single sign-on reserved for the enterprise tier. I found no public information on a REST API, directory import from AD or Entra, webhooks, or ticketing and HR connectors, so the estate feeds nothing and re-typing stays. 1 9 10
The Drafted Generalist
The automation shown is internal — recurring audits that create and document their own tasks, deadline reminders, automated risk assessment — plus Word and PDF exports and SSO only at the top tier. We found no public information on an API, directory import, or ticketing and HR connectors, so the real IT estate still gets entered by hand. 1 9 10
The Lead Auditor
The estate-facing side is nearly silent: we found no public information on an API, directory import, ticketing connectors or webhooks, while SSO appears only in the Enterprise tier and exports are documents. The automation that exists — reminders, recurring audit tasks, an automated risk assessment — is internal to the tool rather than fed from the real IT landscape. 8 9 10
The IT Integrator
This is the criterion I weigh hardest, and here the captured pages show no way to feed this platform from an estate that already exists: we found no public information on a documented API, directory import from Entra or AD, webhooks, SCIM or ticketing connectors, and SSO appears only in the Enterprise tier behind a custom quote. The automation that is evidenced — deadline reminders, recurring audit tasks, inheritance, the document generator with Word and PDF export — runs entirely inside the tool. 1 9 10
The Skeptic
The automation on display lives inside the product — recurring audit cycles, deadline reminders, a document generator — and SSO appears only as an Enterprise-tier feature; we found no public information on an API, directory or ticketing connectors, or import paths from the real IT estate. The captured pages also give different figures for effort reduction (50% less effort, up to 70%, and up to 50% time savings), so the promised savings are not consistently quantified anywhere. 1 2 9 10
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
German GmbH, developed in Münster and a "100% EU-Server" claim on the product page — good instincts for a vendor whose system would hold a client's entire RoPA. We found no public information on the DPA, the subprocessor list, named data centers or ownership, and that undocumented chain is exactly what I would have to show a supervisory authority on a client's behalf. 5 8 10
The In-House Counsel
A German limited company with development in Münster and '100% EU-Server' is the right starting position for the platform that would hold my register. But I found no public information on a data processing agreement, a subprocessor list, named data centers or ownership — and for a system mapping my most concentrated processing, that undocumented chain is exactly what I need before signature. 5 8 10
The Drafted Generalist
A German GmbH with "100% EU-Server" and development in Münster reads European end to end. But the captured pages show no public DPA, no subprocessor list and no named data centers, and ownership is unknown — the documented chain I would want from the vendor holding my record of processing is not visible. 5 8 10
The Lead Auditor
A German GmbH with a commercial register entry, development in Münster and a stated 100% EU-Server claim is a solid jurisdictional start, though the hosting statement names no data centers. We found no public information on a published data processing agreement, a subprocessor list, or ownership, and undocumented subprocessor exposure is exactly what I cannot sign off on for the system holding the register of processing. 5 8 10
The IT Integrator
A German GmbH in Altenberge, software developed in Münster, and hosting on '100% EU-Server' is the right starting point for a system that maps your processing. We found no public information on a published DPA, a subprocessor list or the ownership structure, so the chain behind the vendor's own entity is undocumented on the captured pages. 5 8 10
The Skeptic
A German GmbH with '100% EU-Server' claimed as standard and development in Münster is the right shape, but that is where the public trail ends. We found no public information on a data processing agreement, a subprocessor list, named data centers, or the ownership behind the entity — for a system holding your records of processing, that silence is the deciding fact. 5 8 10
Pricing transparency
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
Real numbers with monthly billing and company limits for three tiers (0 €, from 99 €, from 299 €) and consulting sold as a separate path, so a single-company mandate computes in two minutes. But the tier with unlimited companies and SSO — the one a thirty-mandate practice actually needs — is priced only on request, and we found no public per-module price for the AI management software. 3 1 10
The In-House Counsel
Three of four editions carry real monthly figures with company limits stated — 0 €, from 99 € monthly, from 299 € monthly, with Enterprise on request — which is more than this market usually shows. The 'from' wording leaves what moves the number unstated, and I found no public information on pricing for the AI management software or the outsourced officer services, so a buyer cannot compute the full invoice from the pages alone. 3 1 10
The Drafted Generalist
Three tiers carry real numbers with the billing period stated — Free at "0 € monatlich", Starter "Ab 99 € monatlich" for 1 company, Professional "Ab 299 € monatlich" for 3 companies — so a firm like mine can compute its software invoice quickly. But Enterprise with SSO and group functions is "Auf Anfrage", the "Ab" leaves variability unexplained, and we found no public information on setup fees or pricing for the AI management software. 10
The Lead Auditor
The software ladder is legible: Free at 0 € monthly, Starter and Professional listed as "Ab 99 €" and "Ab 299 €" monthly with company limits of 1 and 3, and Enterprise "Auf Anfrage", which for a corporate-group tier is defensible. We found no public information on setup fees, user boundaries, pricing for the AI management software or the consulting offerings, and the "Ab" wording leaves the real invoice only partially computable. 3 10
The IT Integrator
Three of four tiers carry public numbers with billing period and company limits stated — '0 € monatlich' for one company, 'Ab 99 € monatlich' for one, 'Ab 299 € monatlich' for three — which makes the ladder computable for small and mid-sized groups. Beyond three companies, or the moment you need SSO, everything moves to 'Auf Anfrage', and the consulting side (external DPO, external AI officer) is unpriced on the captured pages. 3 10
The Skeptic
Three of four tiers carry real figures with billing period and company limits stated (0 €, ab 99 € monatlich, ab 299 € monatlich), and consulting is offered as a separate path from the software. The 'ab' wording leaves every scale step above the floor unpriced and Enterprise is Auf Anfrage, so a multi-company buyer still cannot compute the invoice from public pages alone. 1 10
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 | 5 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | 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 24 Aug 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- 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 could not confirm any compliance information on the vendor’s own pages as captured, so this page shows none rather than a statement we cannot stand behind. Know more? Tell us
- 97 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
- 26 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
- 18 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
- 5 support 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
- 3 hosting 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 integrations 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 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. 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 keyed.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 +2 earlier captures: 16 Sep 2026, 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 DSMS product page keyed.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 +3 earlier captures: 15 Sep 2026, 31 Aug 2026, 24 Aug 2026 Details →
- 3 Vendor pricing page keyed.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Company page keyed.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 +2 earlier captures: 16 Sep 2026, 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Imprint keyed.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 31 Aug 2026 Details →
- 6 Records & DPIA depth — found from sitemap help.keyed.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Records & DPIA depth — found from sitemap help.keyed.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Data subject rights & incidents — found from sitemap help.keyed.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Data subject rights & incidents — found from sitemap help.keyed.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap keyed.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap help.keyed.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →