whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Data Protection

Keyed DSMS

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 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 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Report an error

Pricing transparency

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

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

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 ⚠ unverified — 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 Keyed DSMS? 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 keyed.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 +2 earlier captures: 16 Sep 2026, 15 Sep 2026 Details →
  2. 2 DSMS product page keyed.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 +3 earlier captures: 15 Sep 2026, 31 Aug 2026, 24 Aug 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Vendor pricing page keyed.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 16 Sep 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Company page keyed.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 +2 earlier captures: 16 Sep 2026, 15 Sep 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Imprint keyed.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 31 Aug 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Records & DPIA depth — found from sitemap help.keyed.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Records & DPIA depth — found from sitemap help.keyed.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Data subject rights & incidents — found from sitemap help.keyed.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Data subject rights & incidents — found from sitemap help.keyed.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap keyed.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  11. 11 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap help.keyed.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →