Data Protection
Osano
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Osano, Inc. · osano.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.
Osano at a glance
- Vendor
- Osano, Inc.
- 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 Osano 2.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Osano, a data protection platform, scores highest on integrations and automation at 7 to 8: 155 data-discovery integrations, a documented REST API, webhooks, Jira alerting, and automated subject-rights summaries and deletions across SaaS apps. 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
Osano, a data protection platform, scores highest on integrations and automation at 7 to 8: 155 data-discovery integrations, a documented REST API, webhooks, Jira alerting, and automated subject-rights summaries and deletions across SaaS apps. Rights and incidents scores a flat 6 — embeddable and email intake, internal deadlines ahead of the 30/45-day windows, deletion with CSV proof — with no public information on breach registers, the 72-hour clock, or authority notification. Privacy management runs 4 to 5 and framework coverage is a flat 5, crediting GDPR and CCPA pages, consent across 50+ countries in 42 languages, but no public information appears on TOMs, legal bases, DPIA triggers, or regimes like BDSG, Swiss nDSG, UK GDPR. Audit readiness spans 4 to 6: some credit audit logs and dashboards as standing proof; others read Audit Defense as staffed response, not system-produced state. Sovereignty at 1 to 2 and pricing transparency at 0 to 1 are the floor: the vendor is a US public benefit corporation, no hosting, DPA or subprocessor details appear, and beyond a free 30-day trial no prices are published.
Speaks for it
- 155 data-discovery integrations, a documented REST API and webhooks connect the platform to the live SaaS estate
- Subject-rights handling runs from embeddable and email intake to automated deletion that returns a CSV of what was removed
- Internal deadlines can be set earlier than the statutory 30/45-day windows
- Automatically generated audit logs and a centralized consent audit trail record how personal data and consents were handled
- GDPR and CCPA each get dedicated solution pages, with geofencing presenting jurisdiction-appropriate request types
Held against it
- No prices appear on any captured page; the only public commercial offer is a free 30-day trial
- We found no public information on a breach register, the 72-hour clock, or authority notification
- We found no public information on hosting location, a published DPA, or a subprocessor list
- We found no public information on TOMs, legal bases, or DPIA triggers derived from the record
- Audit Defense is a human-led service triggered by a regulator's notice, with customers asked to alert Osano within 24 hours
Best for
- You need automated DSAR fulfillment across a large SaaS estate, with API-driven deletion that returns a CSV of what was removed
- You operate mainly under GDPR and CCPA and want one data map serving jurisdiction-appropriate request types through geofencing
- Your consent program spans many countries — claimed across 50+ countries in 42 languages — and you want it alongside subject-rights automation
- You want compliance reporting you can hand to stakeholders — dashboards filter by jurisdiction and date, and audit logs are generated automatically
Avoid if
- You need to know the price before a sales conversation — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You need breach and incident workflows, not just subject rights — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- Your procurement requires a visible jurisdictional chain for the platform holding your records of processing — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You need a standing, system-produced audit state without a human service — audit readiness spans 4 to 6 across the bench on exactly that question
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Records & DPIA depth | 2.5 of 5 |
| Data subject rights & incidents | 3 of 5 |
| Privacy regime coverage | 2.5 of 5 |
| Audit readiness & evidence | 2.5 of 5 |
| Integrations & automation | 4 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 0.5 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 0.5 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
Data Mapping, Assessments and Vendor Management are real modules with depth on the vendor side — a 163-item scoring ontology — but the captured pages show no connected model in which one processing record drives assessments, TOMs and legal bases. We found no public information on TOM modeling, on DPIA triggers derived from the record, or on reusable group templates, and above all nothing on multi-client or mandate handling — with thirty mandates, per-client rebuilds are the cost that decides my buy. 3 2 7
The In-House Counsel
Automated data mapping with system discovery, an assessments module with templates and reporting, and vendor management built on a proprietary scoring database are all evidenced. I found no public information on TOMs attached to processing activities, on legal bases, or on DPIA triggers derived from the record — the connections an authority examiner walks through first — nor on reusable group or multi-client templates. 2 3 4 7
The Drafted Generalist
Data mapping, assessments and vendor management are real modules — automated system discovery through single sign-on, template vendor assessments, and dashboards flagging overdue assessments. We found no public information on TOMs, legal bases, or DPIA triggers derived from the record, so the register looks solid without the connected legal depth I would lean on. 2 3 4 7 9
The Lead Auditor
Data mapping with automated system discovery, a repository of past and ongoing privacy assessments, and vendor management with a 163-item scoring ontology are evidenced as modules, though the RoPA discussion I can find sits in marketing guides rather than a shown register model. We found no public information on TOMs, legal bases linked to processing records, DPA management, or DPIA triggers derived from the record — the connections that make privacy records a system of record rather than adjacent modules. 2 3 4 7
The IT Integrator
Automated data mapping with an underlying data inventory, an assessments repository with templates and severity reporting, and vendor management with a 163-item score give me linked modules rather than a folder tree, and discovery through the SSO provider keeps the inventory honest. But the captured pages show no modeling of TOMs, legal bases, or DPIA triggers derived from the record, so the legal artifacts I need connected stay outside what is evidenced. 2 3 4 7
The Skeptic
Data Mapping, Vendor Management and an Assessments repository exist as named modules with template vendor assessments and reporting, which is past templates-in-a-folder. But the captured pages never show TOMs, legal bases, or DPIA triggers derived from the record — the connected data model is asserted by a module list, not demonstrated, and the RoPA material is largely an educational guide. 2 3 7 9
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
The rights half is genuinely operational: embeddable intake with email forwarding, identity verification with file capture, per-field delete-versus-redact rules, internal deadlines set ahead of the statutory clock, and automated deletion that returns a CSV proving what was removed. On the incident half we found no public information on a breach register, the 72-hour clock or authority-notification output, so half this criterion cannot be credited. 5 4 2
The In-House Counsel
Subject rights genuinely run as operations: embeddable and email intake, identity verification extendable to additional files, internal deadlines that can be set tighter than the statutory 30/45-day windows, and automated deletion that hands you a CSV of exactly what was deleted. But I found no public information on a breach register, the 72-hour clock, or any supervisory-authority notification output — and a defense file without the breach workflow is half a defense. 4 5 6 7 9
The Drafted Generalist
The request side is genuinely operational: embeddable forms, email intake with verification, one-click identity confirmation, automated summaries and deletions with human checks, per-field delete-versus-redact rules, and a CSV proving what was deleted. What holds it back is that we found no public information on a breach register, the 72-hour authority clock, or incident workflows — and that is half my job. 4 5 7 9
The Lead Auditor
Subject rights are operated, not just logged: embeddable forms and a forwarding address for intake, email verification with additional identity files, task assignment to data store owners, per-field delete-versus-redact rules, and automated deletion that returns a CSV summary as proof of execution. Deadline handling appears as manually set internal timelines and at-risk dashboards; we found no public information on escalation automation, and equally no public information on a breach register, the 72-hour clock, or authority notification output — the entire incidents half of this criterion. 4 5 7 9
The IT Integrator
The request half is genuinely operational: embeddable and email intake, identity verification with additional file capture, automated summaries and deletions against connected SaaS apps with a CSV of what was deleted, per-field processing rules, and internal deadlines set ahead of the statutory clock. I found no public information on the incident half — no breach register, 72-hour workflow, or authority-notification output appears on any captured page, which holds this below the top band. 4 5 7 9
The Skeptic
The subject-rights half is genuinely operational — embeddable and email intake, identity verification with additional files, internal deadlines set ahead of the 30/45-day clocks, per-field deletion rules, and automated deletion that returns a CSV of what was deleted. But I found no public information on a breach register, severity assessment, or authority-notification workflow, and half of this criterion is incidents; rights near 8, incidents unevidenced, lands at 6. 4 5 7 9
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
Consent localization for 50+ countries in 42 languages, dedicated GDPR and CCPA pages, and geofencing that presents each jurisdiction's request types give broad coverage with partial cross-mapping through the data map. We found no public information on German or Swiss specifics, UK rules, ePrivacy changes or EU AI Act duties — the regimes my European mandates live under — nor a documented update cadence when the law moves. 2 6 7 4
The In-House Counsel
GDPR and CCPA each get dedicated capabilities, consent is claimed compliant across 50+ countries in 42 languages, and geofencing serves each jurisdiction's lawful request types. I found no public information on AI Act or ePrivacy duties, on one record mapping across regimes rather than per-regime documentation, or on a documented update cadence when the law moves — so I cannot verify the fit for operations beyond the US and the core GDPR footprint. 2 4 6 7
The Drafted Generalist
GDPR and CCPA get full solution pages, consent covers 50+ countries in 42 languages, and geofencing serves each jurisdiction's request types, which is real one-record-many-regimes behavior for their core market. We found no public information on German, Swiss or UK specifics, ePrivacy changes, or AI Act duties, so the newer regimes are unproven. 2 4 6 7
The Lead Auditor
GDPR and CCPA pages carry real product detail, backed by 50+ countries claimed for consent, geofencing that presents jurisdiction-appropriate request types, and localized rights processing — the major regimes for its market with partial cross-mapping. We found no public information on BDSG, Swiss nDSG, UK GDPR, ePrivacy or AI Act duties, or on one record documenting once across regimes. 2 4 5 6 7
The IT Integrator
GDPR and CCPA are both operationalized, with geofencing and localized rights processing adapting request types per jurisdiction from one data map, and consent claimed across 50-plus countries in 42 languages. I found no public information on the European neighbors a continental estate needs — BDSG, Swiss nDSG, UK GDPR, ePrivacy updates or AI Act duties — so this reads as US-market coverage plus GDPR rather than cross-regime mapping. 2 4 6 7
The Skeptic
GDPR and CCPA get dedicated solution pages, consent claims 50+ countries in 42 languages, and geofencing presents jurisdiction-appropriate request types — one system serving regimes rather than per-regime checklists. But I found no public information on BDSG, Swiss nDSG, UK GDPR, ePrivacy or AI Act privacy duties as operationalized content, or on any documented update cadence; "always up to date" is a slogan, not maintenance evidence. 1 2 4 6 7
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
Automatically generated audit logs, a repository of past assessments, and dashboards I could hand a client as-is — overdue, at-risk, filterable, shareable — mean reports leave the door fast. But Audit Defense reads as an expert service wrapped around the platform rather than a system capability, and we found no public information on revision-safe change history, auditor access roles, on-demand evidence packs, or a defensible answer to the state on a past date. 2 9 8
The In-House Counsel
Automatically generated audit logs, a centralized consent audit trail, and dashboards filterable by jurisdiction and date are evidenced, and the Audit Defense service puts experts, documentation drafting, and a pledge to pay up to $500k of fines behind a regulator notice. That is staffed response rather than standing system proof; I found no public information on revision-safe change history, auditor access roles, or reconstructing the state on a given date. 2 8 9
The Drafted Generalist
Automatically generated audit logs, a consent audit trail presented as a single source of truth, and strong report generators with jurisdiction and date filtering give me standing proof I could hand over. The headline audit offer is a human-led defense service rather than system-produced evidence packs, and we found no public information on auditor access roles or reconstructing the state on a given date. 2 5 8 9
The Lead Auditor
Automatically generated audit logs, a centralized consent audit trail, and dashboards for consent, subject rights and assessments with filtering give a partial standing state. Audit Defense is a human service that begins when the regulatory notice arrives — an expert drafting documentation and handling follow-ups — which is assembling the file the week of the audit rather than before. We found no public information on revision-safe versioning of registers, evidence packs on demand, auditor access roles, or answering for the state on a given date. 2 8 9 11
The IT Integrator
Automatically generated audit logs of how personal data was handled, live dashboards for assessments and rights requests with jurisdiction filtering, a centralized consent audit trail, and an Audit Defense service backed by a fine pledge are real output I could point an auditor at. I found no public information on versioned records, exportable evidence packs, auditor access roles, or reconstructing the state on a given date, so a standing audit state is not evidenced. 2 8 9 11
The Skeptic
Audit logs are described as automatically generated and the reporting dashboards are real, but Audit Defense is a human consulting arrangement — an expert drafts your documentation and you must alert them within 24 hours of a regulator's notice — which tells me the audit file is not a standing state the system produces on its own. I found no public information on revision-safe change history, evidence packs, or auditor access roles. 2 8 9
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
This is the strongest showing: 155 data discovery integrations, a documented customer REST API, webhooks, Jira, an iOS SDK, and automated system discovery through the SSO provider. Automated summaries, deletion and packaging of subject rights requests with human verification remove recurring toil I actually bill for; we found no public information on SCIM, HR or asset sources, or escalation paths, which is the only thing keeping this from the top. 10 11 4 5 7
The In-House Counsel
This is the platform's strongest suit: 155 data discovery integrations, a documented customer REST API, webhooks feeding tools like Jira, system discovery through the single sign-on provider, an iOS SDK, and automated summary and deletion execution across connected stores with human verification in the loop. I found no public information on SCIM provisioning, bidirectional sync, or automated escalation paths, which is what keeps it short of behaving like infrastructure. 2 4 5 10 11
The Drafted Generalist
This connects to the real estate: 155 data discovery integrations, webhooks, a documented customer REST API, Jira alerting, and automated deletion that executes against SaaS APIs and hands me a summary CSV — the recurring request toil actually disappears. The AI-powered module is named without detail in the captured pages, and SCIM is not mentioned. 4 5 10 11
The Lead Auditor
The estate connection is real: 155 data discovery integrations plus source discovery and privacy signals, a documented customer REST API, webhooks, an iOS SDK, Jira wired in for notifications, and APIs that create data stores and automate deletion. SSO-based system discovery and API-driven subject rights execution move well past reminders. We found no public information on SCIM provisioning, event streams, bidirectional sync, or API parity for the full data model. 4 5 10 11
The IT Integrator
This is the part I would actually deploy against my estate: a documented REST API for subject rights, data mapping, data stores and the consent ledger, webhooks, a Jira integration for alerts, system discovery through the SSO provider, and 155 data-discovery integrations feeding automated summary and deletion actions — the compliance data syncs instead of being retyped. I found no public information on SCIM or login SSO for the platform itself, escalation automation, or bidirectional sync, so it stops short of full infrastructure behavior. 2 4 10 11
The Skeptic
155 data-discovery integrations, a documented REST API, webhooks, Jira, SSO-based system discovery and automated summary/deletion across SaaS apps is real automation against the actual estate, not re-typing. I dock it because "AI-Powered Osano" appears in three module lists with not one described capability behind it — the exact pattern I exist to catch — and I found no public information on escalation handling or SCIM. 2 5 10 11
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
The vendor presents itself as Osano, Inc., a public benefit corporation, with UK-named entities appearing only in a disclaimer, and for the system that would hold my clients' entire processing record we found no public information on jurisdiction, hosting location, EU data residency, a DPA or a subprocessor list. As evidenced, this is not a record-keeping platform I could put in front of a European client's works council; only the named international entities keep it just off the floor. 9 8
The In-House Counsel
The vendor presents as Osano, Inc., a public benefit corporation, with two United Kingdom entities appearing only in a legal disclaimer. I found no public information on hosting region, a published data processing agreement, or a subprocessor list — and the platform that maps my processing is itself my most concentrated processing, so this silence decides the score. 8 9
The Drafted Generalist
The vendor is named as a US-incorporated public benefit corporation, and we found no public information on hosting location, a published DPA, or a subprocessor list — for the system that would hold my entire record of processing. UK and international compliance entities appear in a legal disclaimer, but we found no public information on European hosting or a clean processor chain. 8 9
The Lead Auditor
The vendor is Osano, Inc., a US Public Benefit Corporation, with UK compliance entities named only in a legal disclaimer — a non-EU entity for the system that would hold your privacy record. We found no public information on data residency, hosting locations, ownership, a published DPA, or the subprocessor chain, so the jurisdictional exposure of the compliance record itself cannot be assessed from the captured pages. 8 9
The IT Integrator
The captured pages identify the vendor as Osano, Inc., a US public benefit corporation, with UK and international compliance subsidiaries named only in a legal disclaimer. I found no public information on hosting location or residency, a published DPA, or a subprocessor list — for the system that would hold my records of processing, the jurisdictional chain is not visible in public materials. 8 9
The Skeptic
The footer names Osano, Inc., a Public Benefit Corporation — a US corporate form — and a legal disclaimer names UK compliance subsidiaries, and that is the entire jurisdictional picture on offer. I found no public information on hosting location, a DPA, or a subprocessor list for the platform that would hold your data map; for a US-incorporated vendor with every residency attribute unknown, this sits at the bottom of the scale. 8 9
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
The one computable public figure is a free 30-day trial; beyond that the pages send you to "reach out to our sales team", so a two-client deployment is not computable from public pages, let alone the invoice for a ten-client consultancy. Unpublished pricing is the norm in this market, but there is nothing here to compute with. 8 5
The In-House Counsel
The only commercial terms in evidence are a free 30-day trial and an invitation to schedule a demo or contact the sales team. I found no public information on edition prices, module pricing, or scale boundaries, so the real invoice only exists after the sales conversation — the market norm here, which I record rather than excuse. 5 8
The Drafted Generalist
We found no public prices at all — the pages point to the sales team, with a free 30-day trial as the only concrete offer. I cannot begin to compute what an 80-employee firm would pay from what is published. 5 8
The Lead Auditor
We found no public prices at all — no editions, modules, entity counts, or billing periods — and every path shown ends in a demo, a trial, or a sales conversation; a 30-day free trial is the only public packaging fact. A buyer cannot compute any invoice from the captured pages. 5 8
The IT Integrator
No price figures appear on any captured page; what is public comes down to a 30-day free trial and prompts to reach out to the sales team. Every configuration is a sales conversation, so the real invoice is not computable from public information. 5 8
The Skeptic
No price appears on any captured page; the numbers that do appear are review ratings and a $500,000 fines pledge. The only concrete commercial fact is a free 30-day trial — everything else routes buyers to "reach out to our sales team to start a conversation," so the real invoice is incomputable from public pages. 5 8
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 Osano
Is Osano European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Osano is based.
Where does Osano store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Osano have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Osano?
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: Osano 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.
- 23 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
- 3 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
- 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
- 2 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
- 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 page osano.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Records & DPIA depth — found from sitemap www.osano.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Records & DPIA depth — found from sitemap www.osano.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Data subject rights & incidents — found from sitemap www.osano.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Data subject rights & incidents — found from sitemap www.osano.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Privacy regime coverage — found from sitemap www.osano.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Privacy regime coverage — found from sitemap www.osano.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap www.osano.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap www.osano.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap www.osano.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap www.osano.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →