Data Protection
MetaPrivacy
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by MetaCompliance Ltd · www.metacompliance.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Link to this page
Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds.
The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where
that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.
MetaPrivacy at a glance
- Vendor
- MetaCompliance Ltd
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates MetaPrivacy 0.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. On the captured pages, MetaPrivacy (MetaCompliance Ltd) presents as a security-awareness platform — phishing simulations with real-world templates, '10M+ People Trained' — with privacy itself appearing as one line about centralising policy, privacy and incident management. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
On the captured pages, MetaPrivacy (MetaCompliance Ltd) presents as a security-awareness platform — phishing simulations with real-world templates, '10M+ People Trained' — with privacy itself appearing as one line about centralising policy, privacy and incident management. Scoring is strongest on integrations and automation, 2-4, where a named Power BI integration, automated alerts and automated risk scoring are the evidenced surface; the spread is a weighting difference, with the lead auditor scoring 4 on those named claims and the external DPO scoring 2 and calling it a business-intelligence feed. Audit readiness spans 1-3: reporting is claimed, but we found no public information on revision-safe history, evidence packs or auditor access. Weakest are privacy management, framework coverage and sovereignty, all 0-1 — we found no public information on records of processing, DPIA tooling or processor management; no privacy regime is named, and '44+ languages' is localisation rather than legal coverage; and jurisdiction, ownership, data residency and subprocessor exposure are listed as unknown. Rights and incidents scored 1-2 on a downloadable incident checklist. On pricing, we found no public figures beyond the free downloads.
Speaks for it
- Names a Power BI integration alongside automated alerts and automated risk scoring, scoring 2-4 on integrations and automation
- Claims 'audit-ready reports', detailed reporting and advanced analytics, with audit readiness scoring 1-3
- Offers free downloads, including a complimentary incident checklist and a Free Cyber Security Awareness Month Toolkit
- States availability in 44+ languages worldwide on one single platform
Held against it
- We found no public information on a records-of-processing register, DPIA tooling, processor management or technical and organisational measures, with privacy management scoring 0-1
- No privacy regime is named on the captured pages — GDPR and national variants never appear — with framework coverage scoring 0-1
- Jurisdiction, ownership, data residency and subprocessor exposure are all listed as unknown, with sovereignty scoring 0-1
- Rights and incidents scored 1-2, with no public information on statutory request clocks or a 72-hour breach register beyond a downloadable checklist
- Beyond the Power BI read-out, we found no public information on a documented API, directory import, single sign-on or ticketing connectors
Best for
- You need phishing simulations and security-awareness training for a workforce, with automated risk scoring and reporting on top
- You already run Power BI and want compliance and training reporting pulled into it
- You need awareness content available in 44+ languages across a global workforce on one platform
Avoid if
- You need a records-of-processing register, DPIA workflows or processor management to put in front of a supervisory authority, with privacy management scoring 0-1
- You must operationalize named regimes such as GDPR across one record — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You need statutory request clocks and 72-hour breach handling as software workflows rather than a downloadable checklist, with rights and incidents scoring 1-2
- You require a published data-processing agreement, subprocessor list and residency terms before signing — sovereignty scored 0-1 with every listed attribute unknown
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Records & DPIA depth | 0.5 of 5 |
| Data subject rights & incidents | 1 of 5 |
| Privacy regime coverage | 0 of 5 |
| Audit readiness & evidence | 1.5 of 5 |
| Integrations & automation | 1.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 0 of 5 |
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
The captured pages offer a single line about centralising policy, privacy and incident management with analytics and reporting, and we found no public information on a records-of-processing register, DPIA workflow, processor management or technical and organisational measures. For a practice that needs the record of processing to drive everything downstream, the legal artifacts are simply not evidenced; what is shown is an awareness platform wearing a privacy label. 1
The In-House Counsel
The captured pages name "policy, privacy and incident management" as a marketing line and go no further; we found no public information on a structured processing register, DPIA questionnaires, or processor, TOM and legal-basis management. The depth I would need to put in front of a supervisory authority is simply not evidenced. 1
The Drafted Generalist
The captured page names 'policy, privacy and incident management' with analytics and reporting, but we found no public information on records of processing, impact assessments, processor management or security measures — the legal artifacts I would actually have to maintain. What I can see is marketing around awareness and phishing, not a register I could hand to a supervisor. 1
The Lead Auditor
The captured pages reduce privacy management to one marketing line about centralising policy, privacy and incident management; we found no public information on records of processing, DPIA tooling, processor management or TOMs. Not one register field or legal artifact is visible anywhere, which sits at the floor of the scale. 1
The IT Integrator
The only privacy signal is a one-line claim that policy, privacy and incident management are centralized with analytics and reporting; we found no public information on a records-of-processing register, DPIA workflows, processor agreements or TOMs. Without any evidence of structured records, this sits at the very bottom of the scale. 1
The Skeptic
The captured page pairs a '10M+ People Trained' claim with '6 million users' and leads with phishing simulations and awareness training; the only privacy-records content is one line about centralising "policy, privacy and incident management with advanced analytics". We found no public information on a records-of-processing register, DPIA support, processor management or TOMs. On this evidence, what is on display is an awareness platform in a compliance category. 1
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
Incident management appears as an analytics-and-alerts claim alongside a complimentary downloadable incident checklist, and we found no public information on data subject request intake, statutory clock tracking, a structured breach register or authority-notification output. Nothing here is operational for an external advisor running Article 12 and 72-hour deadlines across many clients at once. 1 2
The In-House Counsel
Incident management appears as a named capability with automated alerts, and the vendor offers a complimentary downloadable incident checklist alongside free awareness assets; we found no public information on statutory request clocks, a 72-hour breach clock, authority-notification output, or deletion workflows tied to any register. A downloadable checklist is a memo, not the Art. 33 workflow I need to produce. 1 2
The Drafted Generalist
Incident management with automated alerts is named on the homepage and there is a downloadable incident checklist, but we found no public information on data subject request workflows, identity checks, statutory deadlines or a breach register with the 72-hour clock. For someone like me, that clock-tracking is the entire reason to buy software instead of running a spreadsheet. 1 2
The Lead Auditor
The strongest signals are a complimentary downloadable incident checklist behind a lead form and a line about incident management with automated alerts; we found no public information on data subject request workflows, statutory clocks, a breach register or deletion execution. A downloadable checklist is documentation, not rights and incidents as operations. 1 2
The IT Integrator
What surfaces is a complimentary incident checklist download and a generic incident-management tagline with automated alerts; we found no public information on data subject request workflows, statutory clocks, authority notification or deletion execution. A downloadable checklist is documentation, not operations. 1 2
The Skeptic
Incident handling appears as a marketing phrase about "policy, privacy and incident management" plus a 'COMPLIMENTARY incident checklist' downloadable from a thank-you page offered alongside cyber-security awareness material — documentation, not workflow. We found no public information on data subject request handling, statutory clocks, a 72-hour breach register or deletion execution. A downloadable checklist sits at the memo end of the spectrum. 1 2
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
The captured pages never name a single privacy regime — GDPR, BDSG, Swiss nDSG and UK GDPR are all unmentioned — so we found no public information on which laws the product actually operationalises. With no regime named, one-record-many-regimes mapping is not something I can assess at all, and that is worth the bottom of the scale. 1
The In-House Counsel
We found no public information on which privacy regimes the product operationalizes — GDPR, national variants, UK GDPR, AI Act duties — or on any one-record-many-regimes mapping. The captured pages cite availability in 44+ languages, which is content localization rather than legal coverage, and legal content with no visible maintenance is not something I can rely on. 1
The Drafted Generalist
We found no public information on which privacy regimes the product operationalizes — GDPR, national variants and AI Act duties never appear in the captured material. The only international signals are '44+ languages' and worldwide user counts, which tell me nothing about whether one processing record maps across regimes. 1
The Lead Auditor
The only regime-adjacent facts are availability in 44+ languages on a single platform and worldwide user counts, which speak to localization, not legal regimes; we found no public information on GDPR, national variants, ePrivacy or AI Act duties being operationalized. Nothing here evidences even one regime modeled in the product, let alone one record mapping across several. 1
The IT Integrator
We found no public information naming which privacy regimes the product operationalizes — no GDPR, national variants, or AI Act duties appear in the captured pages. Availability in 44+ languages is localization, not regime coverage, so the mapping story is entirely unevidenced. 1
The Skeptic
The captured pages name no privacy regime at all: we found no public information on GDPR, BDSG, Swiss or UK variants, ePrivacy or AI Act duties, or any mapping between them. 'Available in 44+ languages' is a localisation claim, not a compliance-regime claim. 1
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
Audit readiness is claimed through Power BI integration, detailed reporting and progress measurement, which reads as management dashboards for demonstrating return on investment rather than revision-safe history or evidence packs. We found no public information on change tracking, auditor access roles, or the ability to show a record's state on a given date. 1
The In-House Counsel
The vendor claims Power BI integration for audit-ready reports plus advanced analytics and detailed reporting; we found no public information on revision-safe change history, evidence collection, auditor access roles, or a state-on-date-X answer. A dashboard is a management toy, not an audit file I could hand to an authority. 1
The Drafted Generalist
The homepage claims Power BI integration 'for audit-ready reports' alongside detailed reporting and analytics, so reporting is at least on the table. We found no public information on revision-safe change history, evidence collection or auditor-facing exports, so I cannot tell what an auditor or authority would actually be handed. 1
The Lead Auditor
Reporting is genuinely claimed — detailed reporting and a Power BI integration for audit-ready reports — but reports are not evidence. We found no public information on revision-safe change history, evidence collection, auditor access or a defensible answer to the state on a given date, and a trail assembled the week before the audit is precisely what I will not accept. 1
The IT Integrator
The claim of audit-ready reports via Power BI, detailed reporting and automated risk scoring describes management dashboards, but we found no public information on revision-safe change history, evidence packs, auditor access or point-in-time reconstruction. Reporting polish without an evidenced history trail earns little here. 1
The Skeptic
'Audit-ready' appears exactly once, attached to a Power BI integration, riding alongside 'automated risk scoring' and 'detailed reporting' as bare claims. We found no public information on revision-safe change history, evidence collection, auditor access roles or report generators behind any register. An adjective on a BI connector is not an audit file. 1
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
The only estate-facing items captured are a Power BI connection for reporting plus automated alerts and automated risk scoring, and we found no public information on a documented API, directory import, SSO or ticketing connectors. That is a business-intelligence feed, not the integration surface a multi-client practice would need to avoid re-typing client data. 1
The In-House Counsel
The evidenced automation surface is one named integration (Power BI) with automated risk scoring and automated alerts; we found no public information on a documented API, directory import, SSO, ticketing or HR connections. Reminders and reporting exports do not remove the recurring privacy toil — they rename it. 1
The Drafted Generalist
One named integration (Power BI) plus automated alerts and automated risk scoring is the extent of what is visible. We found no public information on an API, directory import, single sign-on or connectors to ticketing and HR systems — the connections that would save my team from re-typing everything by hand. 1
The Lead Auditor
A named Power BI integration, automated alerts and automated risk scoring are real claims and put this a step above manual entry with PDF out. But we found no public information on a documented API, directory import, ticketing connectors, SSO or webhooks, so the estate-facing half of this criterion is not in evidence. 1
The IT Integrator
The single named integration is Power BI for reporting — a read-out, not a feed — and we found no public information on an API, directory import from AD/Entra, SSO, webhooks or ticketing connectors. For a platform that must stay current with the estate rather than rely on retyping, that silence is decisive; the automation claims stop at risk scoring and alerts. 1
The Skeptic
The single named integration is Power BI, with 'automated alerts' and 'automated risk scoring' offered as unsubstantiated marketing. We found no public information on an API, directory import, ticketing or HR connectors, SSO/SCIM or webhooks. One outbound analytics connector is a long way from a platform fed by the real IT estate. 1
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
For the platform that would hold thirty clients' registers, we found no public information on the vendor's jurisdiction, ownership, hosting locations, a published data-processing agreement or a subprocessor list. Complete silence on the whole chain is exactly what the bottom of this scale describes, and I cannot put client records of processing into an undocumented chain. 1
The In-House Counsel
Every sovereignty attribute — entity jurisdiction, ownership, hosting location, subprocessor exposure — is unknown from the captured pages, and we found no public information on a data processing agreement, TOMs, or a subprocessor list. For a platform that would hold the compliance record of the whole company, that silence decides the point. 1
The Drafted Generalist
We found no public information on the vendor's jurisdiction, ownership, hosting location, DPA or subprocessor list. For a platform that would hold our entire compliance record, every sovereignty attribute came back unknown, and that is a risk I cannot price. 1
The Lead Auditor
Entity jurisdiction, ownership, hosting location and subprocessor exposure are all unstated on the captured pages; we found no public DPA, no subprocessor list and no data residency statement. For the platform that would hold the register of your processing, an entirely undocumented chain fails at the gate, wherever it later turns out to sit. 1
The IT Integrator
We found no public information on the vendor's entity jurisdiction, hosting locations, data processing agreement or subprocessor list — for a system that would itself hold a company's most concentrated processing record, every sovereignty attribute is unpublished. Unpublished DPA and subprocessor facts is exactly the floor case on this scale. 1
The Skeptic
Every sovereignty fact we score is unknown: we found no public information on the vendor's jurisdiction, ownership, hosting location, DPA or subprocessor list on the captured pages. For a system that would hold a buyer's most concentrated compliance record, an entirely unevidenced chain is the floor. 1
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
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
The only cost figures captured are free marketing assets — an awareness-month toolkit and a complimentary incident checklist — and we found no public information on editions, modules, per-client or per-entity pricing or billing periods. A consultancy cannot begin to compute the real invoice for even one mandate, let alone a panel of them. 1 2
The In-House Counsel
The only pricing signals on the captured pages are free items — a free Cyber Security Awareness Month Toolkit, free awareness assets, and a complimentary incident checklist; we found no public information on edition or module prices, user and entity boundaries, or consulting packages. The real invoice is therefore incomputable from public pages alone. 1 2
The Drafted Generalist
The only public cost information is the free awareness toolkit and the complimentary incident checklist download. We found no public information on platform editions, module pricing or billing terms, so the real invoice would be a sales conversation — which this market normalizes, but a buyer still cannot compute it. 1 2
The Lead Auditor
The only figures on the captured pages are free promotional items — the complimentary incident checklist, the free awareness assets, the free Cyber Security Awareness Month Toolkit; we found no public information on editions, modules, user or entity boundaries or billing periods. A buyer cannot compute any part of the real invoice from these pages. 1 2
The IT Integrator
The only publicly priced items are complimentary downloads — a free Cyber Security Awareness Month Toolkit and a complimentary incident checklist — while the platform itself shows no editions, seat or entity counts, or service fees. We found no public information on what the software costs, so the real invoice cannot be computed at all. 1 2
The Skeptic
The only prices on the captured pages are free — a 'bank of free awareness assets', a 'COMPLIMENTARY incident checklist' and a 'Free Cyber Security Awareness Month Toolkit'. We found no public information on any paid edition, module, scale step or consulting unbundling, so the real invoice is entirely a sales conversation. Giveaways are marketing, not price transparency. 1 2
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 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 | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about MetaPrivacy
Is MetaPrivacy European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where MetaPrivacy is based.
Where does MetaPrivacy store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does MetaPrivacy have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to MetaPrivacy?
As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates preeco | datenschutz (4/5), Dastra (3/5) and caralegal (3/5) highest among the other 41 Data Protection products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is preeco | datenschutz (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: MetaPrivacy alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 13 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- 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 found no public information on pricing on the pages we read (metacompliance.com, metacompliance.com/thank-you-incident-checklist). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- 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
- 14 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
- 1 support fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
Sources (2)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.metacompliance.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Data subject rights & incidents — found from sitemap www.metacompliance.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →