Data Protection
otris privacy
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 otris software AG · www.otris.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
otris privacy is otris software AG's data protection management software for internal, group and external-client data protection. It is strongest where the work is documentation: records of processing activities, technical and organisational measures and inquiries are captured traceably and with versioning, evidence is managed centrally, and reporting is configurable — the footing for audit readiness at 5 and privacy management at 4-6. It is weakest on rights and incidents, a single-point range at 3: the captured pages show a versioned inquiry log, and we found no public information on statutory clocks, 72-hour authority reporting or deletion execution. Framework coverage runs 2-3 on German GDPR alone — MaRisk, KWG, GwG, DORA and WpHG sit in the banking compliance offering — and integrations run 2-4 on a customer-chosen AI connector, with other work delivered as project services. Sovereignty scores 4-6: German development and hosting and an on-premises option, but no published data processing agreement or subprocessor list. No significant disagreement was flagged. Prices are unpublished; the public terms are a free demo, a free trial with automatic cancellation, and a free webcast.
Speaks for it
- Records of processing activities, technical and organisational measures and inquiries are documented in a traceable, versioned manner.
- External-client and group data protection are named use scenarios, with clients managed in a structured manner and companies, locations and roles consolidated transparently.
- Tasks, responsibilities and evidence are managed centrally, with configurable reporting and audit preparation for external mandates.
- A German stock corporation develops in Germany and hosts through its own German subsidiary, with an on-premises option available.
- The AI Service Connector lets each customer choose their own AI provider, under a stated principle that the AI supports and the user decides.
Held against it
- Only a versioned inquiry log is evidenced for requests and breaches, and we found no public information on statutory deadline tracking, the 72-hour clock, structured intake or deletion execution.
- The privacy regime in evidence is German GDPR alone; MaRisk, KWG, GwG, DORA and WpHG belong to the banking compliance offering, and we found no public information on Swiss nDSG, UK GDPR, ePrivacy or AI Act privacy duties.
- DPIA and processor-contract handling appear only as knowledge-page descriptions of what a management system should contain, on a page last updated February 2022, not as named product modules.
- Beyond the AI Service Connector, integration and automation work is delivered as project services by the vendor's subsidiary, and we found no public information on a documented API, directory import, SSO/SCIM or ticketing connectors.
- No published data processing agreement, subprocessor list or named data centres appears, and the FAQ's question about where the AI service is hosted shows no answer on the page.
Best for
- You are an external data protection officer running several client mandates and need structured client management with traceable, versioned registers.
- You coordinate group data protection and need companies, locations and roles consolidated and evaluated transparently.
- You need audit-secure documentation with centrally managed evidence and configurable reporting in a German GDPR setting.
- You want software developed and hosted in Germany, or the option to run it on your own infrastructure.
Avoid if
- You depend on built-in statutory clocks — deadline tracking, 72-hour authority reporting, deletion execution with evidence — for rights requests and breaches.
- You must cover privacy regimes beyond German GDPR, such as Swiss nDSG, UK GDPR or AI Act privacy duties, in one mapped record.
- You expect connector-based integration — a documented API, directory import, SSO/SCIM or ticketing connectors — rather than per-project services work.
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
The suite names external data protection as a first-class scenario — clients managed in a structured manner, companies, locations and roles consolidated transparently — with the record of processing activities, TOMs and inquiries documented in a traceable, versioned way, which is exactly the multi-mandate shape I bill against. What holds it back is depth: DPIA and processor-contract handling appear only as knowledge-page content describing what a management system should do, and we found no public information on a linked data model that derives assessments from the record or on legal-basis linkage. 2 2 4
The In-House Counsel
The product pages evidence a traceable, versioned record of processing activities with TOMs and inquiries documented in one system, plus genuine group and multi-client organization for external data protection officers. However, the DPIA, scoring and processor-contract content I can see sits on an educational knowledge page last updated in February 2022 rather than being evidenced as product modules, and I found no public information on legal-basis modeling or DPIA triggers derived from the record. 2 4 8
The Drafted Generalist
The privacy suite documents the record of processing activities, technical and organisational measures and inquiries in a traceable, versioned way, and the vendor's own guidance on data protection management systems covers impact assessments with scoring plus processor contracts filed in the system — that reads as a real register, not a folder of Word files. I found no public information showing impact assessments are triggered from the record itself or that legal bases are linked into one connected data model, and the deeper DSMS descriptions sit on a knowledge page rather than product claims, so I land at solid but not connected. 2 2 4
The Lead Auditor
The product page documents the record of processing activities, TOMs and inquiries in a traceable and versioned manner, and the suite explicitly covers internal, group and external-client data protection with structured client management. The DPIA material I found lives on a knowledge page describing what a DSMS should contain — scoring-based risk assessment, stored processor contracts — and I found no public information showing processing activities linked to systems, processors and legal bases as one connected data model. 2 2 4 8
The IT Integrator
The product pages confirm records of processing activities, TOMs and inquiries documented in a traceable, versioned manner, with genuine group and external-client scenarios rather than copy-paste. DPIA scoring and processor-contract handling appear only on a general knowledge page about data protection management systems, and we found no public information on a connected data model linking activities to systems, processors and legal bases. 2 2 4 8
The Skeptic
The product pages confirm the record of processing activities, technical and organisational measures and inquiries documented traceably and with versioning, plus genuinely evidenced multi-mandate use for group and external data protection officers. DPIA support and processor-contract handling appear only as general descriptions in the knowledge base of what a management system should contain rather than as named product modules, and we found no public information on legal bases linked to processing activities. 2 2 4
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
Inquiries are documented in the product with versioning, and breach documentation appears as a described component of a data protection management system on the vendor's knowledge pages — that is a request log and an incident list at best. We found no public information on statutory deadline tracking, the 72-hour clock, structured intake channels or deletion workflows with execution evidence, so this is manual-clock territory. 2 4
The In-House Counsel
Inquiries are documented in a traceable, versioned manner, which gives me a structured request log, but I found no public information on statutory deadline tracking, a structured breach register, authority-notification output, or deletion concepts with execution. For a tool that would hold my Article 30 and Article 33 evidence, that silence is the deciding fact. 2 4
The Drafted Generalist
Inquiries are documented in a traceable, versioned manner and data protection violations are named as something the system must document, which covers the basic request-log and incident-list level. I found no public information on statutory deadline tracking, a request intake portal, the 72-hour authority notification output or deletion workflows, and those clocks are exactly what I cannot run by hand. 2 4
The Lead Auditor
The only product-level evidence on requests is that inquiries are documented alongside the registers in a versioned way, with no stated intake channels, identity checks or statutory clocks. Breach handling appears as a single generic sentence on a knowledge page that a DSMS documents data protection violations; I found no public information on a 72-hour clock, authority-report output, deletion concepts or any tracking that deletion actually happened. 2 2 4
The IT Integrator
Inquiries are documented and versioned on the product page, which gives a request log, and breach documentation appears only as a generic description on the knowledge page. We found no public information on statutory deadline tracking, a 72-hour clock, structured request intake channels, authority-report output or deletion execution with evidence. 2 2 4
The Skeptic
Inquiries are documented in a traceable, versioned way inside the product, which is a request log in more than name. Breach documentation and deadline handling appear in the knowledge base as general description, and we found no public information on statutory clocks, structured intake channels, authority-report output or deletion execution. 2 4
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 operationalized regimes are German: GDPR artifacts throughout the privacy content, with MaRisk, KWG, GwG and DORA centralised in the compliance suite's register — strong for a bank mandate, but those are financial rules rather than privacy regimes. We found no public information on Swiss nDSG, UK GDPR, ePrivacy or EU AI Act privacy duties, or on one record mapping across several privacy regimes. 4 6 8
The In-House Counsel
What is operationalized is German GDPR practice; the wider regime discussion lives on knowledge pages about GDPR fines and CLOUD Act exposure rather than product capability. I found no public information on Swiss nDSG, UK GDPR, ePrivacy or EU AI Act privacy duties, and no evidence that one processing record maps across regimes instead of per-regime documentation. 4 7 8
The Drafted Generalist
Everything evidenced is GDPR: the register, TOMs and impact-assessment language are all DSGVO artifacts from a German vendor, and the compliance content I can see centres on financial rules like MaRisk, DORA, GwG and WpHG rather than other privacy regimes. I found no public information on Swiss, UK GDPR, ePrivacy or AI Act privacy duties as supported regimes, so one privacy regime is what the pages show me. 4 6 7
The Lead Auditor
The captured material centres on the GDPR for a German market, with a health-insurance sector solution as the only national variant in evidence; a knowledge page adds CLOUD Act analysis, but that is editorial content, not coverage in the product. The frameworks the product pages name for themselves — MaRisk, KWG, GwG, DORA, WpHG — are financial-supervisory, and I found no public information on Swiss nDSG, UK GDPR, ePrivacy or AI Act duties being operationalized in one record. 6 7 8
The IT Integrator
GDPR in its German form is the visible regime — records of processing, TOMs and impact-assessment terminology throughout — and the wider estate catalogs German financial-sector frameworks such as MaRisk, KWG, GwG, DORA and WpHG. We found no public information on other privacy regimes such as UK GDPR, Swiss nDSG or EU AI Act privacy duties, nor on one record mapping across regimes. 4 6 7 8
The Skeptic
The product is built around the GDPR for the German market, and the other frameworks in evidence — MaRisk, KWG, GwG, DORA, WpHG — sit in the banking compliance offering rather than being privacy regimes. We found no public information on Swiss, UK, ePrivacy or AI Act privacy coverage, or on one record mapping across regimes. 6 7 8
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
Documentation is traceable and versioned and positioned as audit-secure, evidence is managed centrally, analysis tools let me specify what goes into reports, and the archive component carries a KPMG IDW PS 880 certification — a German auditor's standard, albeit from 2010. We found no public information on auditor access roles, on-demand evidence packs or a state-on-date-X answer, so a full audit file still looks like days of assembly. 3 2 2 9
The In-House Counsel
Versioned documentation described as audit-secure, with centralized task, responsibility and evidence management and configurable reporting, is stated on the product pages, and there is a 2010 IDW PS 880 certification of the archive component. I found no public information on revision-safe change history, on-demand audit-scoped evidence packs, or auditor access roles. 3 2 9
The Drafted Generalist
Versioned and traceable records, centrally managed evidence, freely configurable reporting and audit preparation support for external data protection officers are all stated on the product pages, and the archive component carries a KPMG certification from 2010. I found no public information on auditor access roles or audit-scoped evidence packs on demand, so this sits at good standard reporting rather than a standing audit-ready state. 3 2 2 9
The Lead Auditor
Records are documented in a traceable and versioned manner, the suite manages tasks, responsibilities and evidence centrally and advertises audit-secure organization with preparatory work, auditing and reporting for external mandates. The strongest defensible artifact is old — a KPMG certification of the archive component under IDW PS 880 from 2010 — and I found no public information on revision-safe change history for the privacy records, evidence packs on demand, auditor access roles, or an answer to the state on a given date. 3 2 2 9
The IT Integrator
Records are versioned and traceable, the product is positioned as audit-secure, and tasks, responsibilities and evidence are managed centrally with configurable reporting and group-level evaluation. We found no public information on auditor access roles or on-demand audit evidence packs, so assembling a full audit file still looks like a manual project. 3 2 2 9
The Skeptic
Versioned, traceable registers with centrally managed evidence and reporting are claimed on the product page, and audit preparation for external mandates is a named use case. The only certification in evidence is a 2010 IDW PS 880 audit of the archive component; the page citing ISO 27001, EU Cloud Code of Conduct and BSI C5 lists them as criteria rather than credentials, and we found no public information on auditor access roles or point-in-time reconstruction. 3 2 7 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
The AI Service Connector lets the customer choose the AI provider and work in-app without switching tools, everything sits on the shared documentsOS platform, and the risk module runs with reminders and dashboards — useful, but broader integration is otherwise presented as project work through the vendor's services subsidiary. We found no public information on a REST API, directory import, ticketing connectors, webhooks or SSO/SCIM. 3 6 10 11
The In-House Counsel
Integration and automation work is offered through a project-services subsidiary for individual requirements, alongside a customer-selectable AI connector with a human-decides principle. I found no public information on a documented API, directory import, ticketing connectors, webhooks, or SSO/SCIM — the recurring privacy work appears to be re-typed or built per project. 3 10 11
The Drafted Generalist
The AI Service Connector lets a customer plug in their chosen AI provider inside the software, which is a live external connection, and a subsidiary handles integrations and automations as project services. I found no public information on directory import, a documented API, single sign-on or ticketing connectors, so beyond the AI hook this looks like custom project work rather than a connector set. 3 10 11
The Lead Auditor
The documented story is the AI layer: copilot embedded in the specialist solutions, the AI provider chosen by the customer through a service connector, and decisions explicitly left with the user. Beyond that, integrations and automations are offered as project services by a subsidiary, and I found no public information on a documented API, directory import, ticketing or HR connectors, SSO/SCIM, or workflow delegation and escalation feeding from the real IT estate. 3 10 11
The IT Integrator
The only integration evidence is the AI Service Connector with a customer-chosen AI provider, a shared platform across the vendor's own suites, and custom integrations delivered as projects by the vendor's services subsidiary. We found no public information on a documented API, directory import from AD or Entra, webhooks, SSO/SCIM or ticketing connectors — from my seat that is a data island with a consulting drawbridge. 3 10 11
The Skeptic
The one live connection in evidence is the AI Service Connector, which lets customers choose their AI provider. No API documentation, directory import, SSO or connector set is shown, and integration and automation work is described as delivered by a projects subsidiary — a services engagement, not product features. 3 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
A Dortmund AG with cloud operation in German data centers through its own German subsidiary, an on-premises option, and public advice that encryption key management sit exclusively in the EU — a clean shape for where my clients' records would live. We found no public information on a published DPA, a subprocessor list, named data centers or the ownership structure, so I cannot certify the chain end to end. 3 5 3 6 7
The In-House Counsel
A German AG with development and SaaS hosting in German data centers, a German cloud-operation subsidiary, an on-premises option, and advice to keep encryption key management exclusively in the EU is a defensible chain on paper. But I found no public information on a DPA, a subprocessor list, or named data centers, and the FAQ raises where the AI service is hosted without showing the answer on the captured page — a gap the customer-chosen AI provider widens. 5 3 6 7 11
The Drafted Generalist
A German AG in Dortmund, hosting through its own German subsidiary in German data centres, plus an on-premises option, is a genuinely European footprint and better than an EU region on request. But I found no published DPA or subprocessor list, ownership is unclear, and the AI provider is the customer's choice while the pages raise the hosting-location question without showing an answer, so the chain is not documented end to end. 3 5 3 6 11
The Lead Auditor
A German AG registered in Dortmund develops and hosts in German data centres through its own subsidiary otris systems GmbH, with an on-premises option, which covers entity and hosting defaults well. But ownership is not stated, and I found no published DPA, no subprocessor list and no named data centres; ISO 27001, BSI C5 and the EU Cloud Code appear only as advisory criteria on a knowledge page, the only vendor-held certification being the 2010 IDW PS 880 audit of the archive component. Where the customer-chosen AI service is hosted is raised as a question on the FAQ page with no answer shown in the capture. 3 5 3 6 7 11
The IT Integrator
A German stock corporation in Dortmund, software developed in Germany, SaaS in German data centers with on-premises as an option, and hosting through a German subsidiary is the right shape for a system holding the register of processing. But we found no public information on a published DPA, a subprocessor list or named data centers, and the captured pages raise the question of where the customer-chosen AI service is hosted without showing the answer. 3 5 3 6 7 11
The Skeptic
A German listed company, developing and hosting in Germany with an on-premises option and its own hosting subsidiary, is solidly more than an EU region on request. We found no public information on a published data processing agreement or subprocessor list, ownership is undocumented, and the FAQ raises the question of where the AI service is hosted without showing an answer on the page. 5 3 6 11
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 public commercial terms are a free, non-binding demo, a free trial without commitment with automatic cancellation, and a free webcast; no edition, module or scale price appears in any captured page. Every real invoice starts as a sales conversation. 7 10 11
The In-House Counsel
The only public pricing facts are a free, non-binding demo, a free trial with no commitment and automatic cancellation, and a free webcast; no price figures, billing periods or module boundaries appear anywhere I can see. Every real configuration is a sales conversation, which describes the market norm but is full opacity for a buyer computing an invoice. 7 10
The Drafted Generalist
The only public numbers here are that demos, a webcast and a trial are free of charge and non-binding. No edition, module or licence price appears anywhere I can see, so every real configuration starts with a sales conversation. 7 10
The Lead Auditor
The only public pricing information I found is that demos, a trial with automatic cancellation, and webcasts are free. No edition, module, user or entity price appears anywhere, so no invoice total can be computed from the public pages; every configuration runs through a demo request. 7 10
The IT Integrator
The only public commercial terms are a free, non-binding demo, a free trial without commitment and automatic cancellation, and a free webcast. We found no public information on edition, module, user or entity prices, so the real invoice is entirely a sales conversation. 7 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 23 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.
- 57 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
- 32 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
- 12 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
- 6 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
- 5 compliance 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
- 4 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
- 1 integrations 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
- 1 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. 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 www.otris.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 +2 earlier captures: 15 Sep 2026, 31 Aug 2026 Details →
- 2 Privacy suite product page www.otris.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 +3 earlier captures: 15 Sep 2026, 23 Aug 2026, 23 Aug 2026 Details →
- 3 Company page www.otris.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 +2 earlier captures: 15 Sep 2026, 31 Aug 2026 Details →
- 4 DSMS knowledge page www.otris.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Imprint www.otris.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 31 Aug 2026 Details →
- 6 Security / trust page — found from the homepage www.otris.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Privacy regime coverage — found from sitemap www.otris.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Privacy regime coverage — found from sitemap www.otris.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap www.otris.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap www.otris.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap www.otris.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →