Data Protection
PLANIT // PRIMA
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 PLANIT // TECH GmbH · www.planitprima.com
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
PLANIT // PRIMA is a web-based DSGVO management tool from PLANIT // TECH GmbH, a Hamburg spin-off of the IT-law firm PLANIT // LEGAL, sold on expert templates and a six-step audit. It is strongest on audit readiness & evidence: the module — Dashboard, Auditplanung, Prüfschritte & Bewertung, Maßnahmenmanagement, Nachweisführung, Auditbericht & Export — is genuinely evidenced, though rationales cap it below full defensibility because revision-safe change history, auditor access roles and a "state on date X" answer are absent. Data subject rights & incidents scores 3–4 on a structured, deadline-aware Art. 12–23 workflow; the breach half — register, 72-hour clock, authority notification, deletion — is unevidenced. It is weakest on integrations & automation, with no API, directory import, ticketing, SSO or webhooks in the evidence, while privacy regime coverage is DSGVO-only. Sovereignty spans 4–6 on the same facts: high scorers credit a German GmbH hosted solely in an ISO-27001 data center in Germany; low scorers weigh the empty sovereignty-attributes record — no published DPA, subprocessor list or named data center. Pricing is unpublished; a 14-day trial needs no credit card and buying runs through "Termin vereinbaren".
Speaks for it
- Audit readiness & evidence scores 4–6 on an evidenced six-step workflow (Audit-Dashboard, Auditplanung & Vorbereitung, Prüfschritte & Bewertung, Maßnahmenmanagement, Nachweisführung, Auditbericht & Export) that the rationales call the vendor's strongest card.
- Data subject rights & incidents scores 3–4: Art. 12–23 requests run in a structured digital workflow, 'effizient, fristgerecht und nachvollziehbar'.
- Sovereignty draws 4–6: PLANIT // TECH GmbH at Jungfernstieg 1, 20095 Hamburg, spin-off of the IT-law firm PLANIT // LEGAL, with hosting solely in an ISO-27001 data center in Germany per the provenance line.
- Expert-developed DSGVO templates and tutorials plus a three-step onboarding (Kick-off & Ist-Analyse, Design & Vorlagen, Implementierung & Schulung) with optional in-person expert support lower the expertise bar.
Held against it
- Integrations & automation scores 0–1: no API, directory import, ticketing connector, SSO or webhooks appears in the evidence — manual entry in, export out.
- Privacy regime coverage scores 1–2: every regime reference is DSGVO, with no BDSG, Swiss nDSG, UK GDPR or AI Act duties named.
- Records & DPIA depth scores 2–3: templates are evidenced, but no structured RoPA, DPIA module or processor/DPA management appears.
- The breach half of data subject rights & incidents — breach register, 72-hour clock, authority notification, deletion execution — is unevidenced.
- Audit proof caps short: no revision-safe change history, auditor access roles or 'state on date X' answer is documented.
Best for
- You run a German-market SMB and want expert-guided templates plus a structured six-step workflow to produce a first DSGVO audit report (audit readiness & evidence 4–6).
- You handle Art. 12–23 data subject requests by email or spreadsheet today and need a structured, deadline-aware digital workflow instead (data subject rights & incidents 3–4).
- You want your compliance records under a German vendor — PLANIT // TECH GmbH, Hamburg, hosted solely in an ISO-27001 data center in Germany per the provenance — and are prepared to demand the DPA and subprocessor list in the sales conversation, since the sovereignty-attributes record is empty.
Avoid if
- You need the tool to sync with your estate — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You operate under more than GDPR — BDSG, Swiss nDSG, UK GDPR or AI Act duties — since the evidence names only DSGVO.
- You need operational breach handling — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You require published pricing, a documented subprocessor chain and revision-safe audit history before signing, or multi-mandate tooling for a DPO practice — the evidence evidences none of these.
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
Expert-developed templates and tutorials in 'one single tool' with TOM/measure management inside the audit workflow are confirmed, but the evidence never evidences a structured RoPA, DPIA, processor/DPA register or legal-basis linkage — and multi-mandate capability is entirely absent. For a practice running thirty clients, undocumented register depth plus per-client copy-paste is exactly the margin killer I reject. 1 2 4
The In-House Counsel
The evidence evidences expert-built templates, tutorials and a measures-management step inside the audit module, but says nothing about a RoPA register, DPIA methodology, or processor/DPA management — the core legal artifacts I'd be migrating into this tool are simply not evidenced, and per my rules that means they don't exist. 'Sämtliche Bausteine' on the homepage is marketing, not a data model. 1 2 4
The Drafted Generalist
The homepage promises 'sämtliche Bausteine für eine effiziente Datenschutz-Organisation in einem einzigen Tool' with expert templates and no expertise required — that's my kind of guided documentation, but it's a marketing claim. The evidence never shows a structured RoPA, a DPIA module, or processor/DPA management as confirmed facts; the only hard artifact is Maßnahmenmanagement buried in the audit workflow. I can't credit legal-artifact depth the vendor didn't document. 1 2 4
The Lead Auditor
The pitch is expert templates and tutorials that make GDPR documentation possible 'in a few steps' with no expertise required — that is a template register, not a connected data model. TOMs appear only as objects the audit reviews, and the evidence says nothing about DPIA modules, processor/DPA management or legal-basis linkage, so the evidence tops out between the structured-basic and shallow-linked anchors. 1 2 4
The IT Integrator
The claim is 'sämtliche Bausteine... in einem einzigen Tool' with expert templates for DSGVO documentation, but the evidence never evidences a structured RoPA, a DPIA module, processor/DPA management or TOMs assigned to activities — TOMs appear only as an audit-checklist line. Template-guided documentation in a web tool; no connected data model in sight. 1 2 4
The Skeptic
The entire DSMS pitch is 'Von Experten entwickelte Vorlagen und Tutorials' that make GDPR documentation possible 'in nur wenigen Schritten' — a template library in a web app, not an evidenced register: nothing in the evidence names a structured RoPA, DPIA module, processor management or TOMs. 'Fachwissen ist nicht erforderlich' from a law-firm spin-off smells like consulting wearing a software costume. 1 2
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
Art. 12–23 requests handled via a structured digital workflow, 'fristgerecht und nachvollziehbar', gives me a DSR workflow with statutory-deadline handling. But breach register, 72-hour clock, authority notification and deletion execution are nowhere in the evidence — that is half of the operational DSMS missing. 3
The In-House Counsel
There is a structured digital workflow for Art. 12–23 requests that is 'fristgerecht und nachvollziehbar', which gets me a request log with deadline framing but no evidenced intake portal, identity checks, or escalation automation. The breach register and the Art. 33 authority notification — the thing I actually get audited on — are entirely absent from the record. 3
The Drafted Generalist
The Betroffenenrechte page promises Art. 12–23 requests handled 'fristgerecht und nachvollziehbar' in a structured digital workflow — deadline compliance and traceability are exactly what I can't manage by email. But the evidence says not one word about a breach register, the 72-hour clock, or deletion that actually executes, so half this criterion is unevidenced. 3
The Lead Auditor
The one firm fact is a structured digital workflow for Art. 12–23 requests that is 'fristgerecht und nachvollziehbar' — deadline-aware and traceable, which beats a manual log. But breaches, authority notification and deletion execution are entirely unmentioned, so I cannot credit an operational half that the evidence does not evidence. 3
The IT Integrator
A structured digital workflow for Art. 12–23 requests handled 'fristgerecht und nachvollziehbar' is real and roughly anchor-5 shaped for the DSR half, but no intake portal, identity check or escalation automation is shown. The incident half — breach register, 72-hour clock, authority notification, deletion execution — is entirely unevidenced. 3
The Skeptic
A dedicated page does promise Art. 12–23 requests handled 'effizient, fristgerecht und nachvollziehbar' via a structured digital workflow, which earns the DSR half of the anchor. But the evidence is utterly silent on breach registers, the 72-hour clock, authority notification and deletion — half this criterion unevidenced is half failed. 3
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
Every reference is DSGVO; no BDSG specifics, no Swiss nDSG, no UK GDPR, no AI Act duties appear anywhere in the evidence, and the 'regular updates' claim only maintains the one regime. A single hard-coded regime means a fresh documentation island for every client in a second jurisdiction. 1 2
The In-House Counsel
Everything documented is DSGVO: no BDSG, no Swiss nDSG, no UK GDPR, no AI Act duties appear anywhere in the record, which is the anchor's one-regime-hard-coded situation. The saving grace is the claimed 'regelmäßige Updates' to stay current with legislation, so the one regime it covers appears maintained rather than abandoned — but it is still one regime. 1 2
The Drafted Generalist
Every single page speaks DSGVO only — no BDSG, no Swiss nDSG, no UK GDPR, no AI Act appears anywhere in the evidence. The 'regelmäßige Updates... auf dem neusten Stand der Gesetzgebung' promise at least suggests the one regime stays maintained, but one regime is one regime, and I can't assume more than the evidence shows. 1 2
The Lead Auditor
Every capability on record is DSGVO-only; not one page names BDSG, nDSG, UK GDPR, ePrivacy or AI Act duties, let alone one-record-many-regimes mapping. The promise of 'regelmäßige Updates' keeping pace with legislation shows maintenance of a single regime, not regime coverage. 1 2
The IT Integrator
Every regime reference in the evidence is DSGVO — one regime, hard-coded, with no evidence of BDSG, nDSG, UK GDPR, AI Act duties or any one-record-many-regimes mapping. The only maintenance signal is a generic 'regelmäßige Updates' claim, which keeps it just off the floor. 1 2
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
The audit module is their strongest card: dashboard, planning, assessment steps, measures management, Nachweisführung and Auditbericht & Export form a repeatable, client-ready report pipeline I could bill on. Missing: revision-safe change history, an answer to 'show me the state on date X', and auditor access roles — so a full audit file is not a standing state. 4
The In-House Counsel
The audit module is genuinely structured — planning, Prüfschritte, Maßnahmenmanagement, Nachweisführung and an Auditbericht mit Export — and the onboarding promises a 'prüfsicheren Prozess', which matches standard report generators and evidence attached per activity. What I don't get is revision-safe change history or any defensible answer to 'show me the state on date X', so the audit file still depends on trust rather than proof. 3 4
The Drafted Generalist
This is their showpiece and it shows: a six-step Datenschutz-Audit workflow from Audit-Dashboard through Prüfschritte & Bewertung, Maßnahmenmanagement, Nachweisführung to Auditbericht & Export — evidence keeping and report generation are built into the flow, not bolted on. What I don't see is revision-safe change history, auditor access roles, or any defensible answer to 'show me the state on date X'. 4
The Lead Auditor
The audit module is real and in the right shape — Dashboard, Prüfschritte, Maßnahmenmanagement, Nachweisführung and Auditbericht & Export — which supports evidence-per-step and report generation. What I do not see is revision-safe change history, audit-scoped packs on demand, or auditor access roles; nothing here answers 'show me the state on date X', and I refuse to assume it. 4
The IT Integrator
The audit module has a genuine workflow — Dashboard, Planung, Prüfschritte & Bewertung, Maßnahmenmanagement, Nachweisführung, Auditbericht & Export — which delivers report generation and evidence collection. Revision-safe change history, auditor access roles and a defensible 'state on date X' answer are all absent, so it stops at the 5 bench. 4
The Skeptic
The audit page shows a genuine six-step workflow — Dashboard, Prüfschritte & Bewertung, Maßnahmenmanagement, Nachweisführung, Auditbericht & Export — plus an onboarding pitch of 'prüfsicheren Prozess'. But revision-safe change history, auditor access roles and 'show me the state on date X' are nowhere evidenced; the defensible-proof machinery is asserted by feature names, not documented. 3 4
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
Confirmed integrations begin and end with 'web-based' and an export at the end of the audit — no API, no directory import, no ticketing, no SSO, not even CSV import appears in the evidence. Every client's processing inventory would be typed in by hand thirty times over, which is the definition of a closed island. 1 4
The In-House Counsel
Web-based software with digital workflows and an export at the end is the entire integration story: no API, no AD/Entra import, no ticketing or SSO connectors appear in the record at all. As far as the evidence goes, this is a closed island with manual entry in and a report out. 1 3 4
The Drafted Generalist
'Webbasierte Software' is the only technical fact on the entire sheet — no API, no directory import, no SSO, no ticketing, nothing. For an 80-employee firm I could survive re-typing, but a closed island with manual entry in and PDF out is literally the zero anchor. 1
The Lead Auditor
Across all four captured pages there is no mention of an API, directory import, ticketing, SSO or any connector — the only confirmed interface is a web browser. A platform that cannot feed from the estate is a closed island by evidence, and the evidence is the whole world. 1
The IT Integrator
Nothing: no API, no directory import from Entra/AD, no ticketing connector, no SSO, no webhooks — the evidence is silent on every integration a compliance platform needs to stay current by syncing. What it does show is a consulting-driven onboarding (Kick-off & Ist-Analyse, Schulung) and a report export, which is a closed island with a services drawbridge rather than infrastructure. 1 3 4
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 Hamburg-based German GmbH with Germany-only hosting claimed in the provenance line is a decent jurisdictional base, but the sovereignty attributes record is literally empty: no published DPA, no subprocessor list, no public TOMs. For the system that would concentrate thirty clients' RoPAs, an undocumented chain is a diligence hole I cannot paper over. 2 3 4
The In-House Counsel
The good part is real: a German GmbH at Jungfernstieg 1 in Hamburg, spun off a German IT-law firm, with Germany-only ISO-27001 hosting per the provenance — EU entity and EU hosting by default. But the evidence records no published DPA, no TOMs, no subprocessor list and no named data centers, and the system that holds my RoPA is exactly where I refuse to accept an undocumented chain. 2 3
The Drafted Generalist
A German GmbH at Jungfernstieg 1 in Hamburg, spun off an IT-law firm, hosted solely in an ISO-27001 data center in Germany — the record of my compliance sits under German law, which is what I want. But the evidence carries no published DPA and no subprocessor list at all, so I cannot verify the chain below the vendor, and that's the part I'd be asked about first. 2 3 4
The Lead Auditor
The vendor is a German GmbH at a Hamburg address and provenance records hosting solely in an ISO-27001 data center in Germany — clean entity and clean default hosting. But the registry carries no DPA, no subprocessor list and no named data centers, so the chain a buyer would verify is asserted rather than documented. 3 4
The IT Integrator
Solid core: PLANIT // TECH GmbH registered in Hamburg, Germany-only hosting in an ISO-27001 data center, law-firm provenance — the RoPA lives under EU jurisdiction. But the evidence carries no published DPA, no subprocessor list and no named data center, which caps it below the 8 anchor. 3
The Skeptic
A German GmbH at Jungfernstieg 1, Hamburg, with sole ISO-27001 hosting in Germany per provenance, puts the RoPA under EU jurisdiction by default — genuinely better than an EU-region-on-request tier. But the evidence documents no published DPA, no subprocessor list, no named data center, and the header itself admits 'no sovereignty attributes on record'; an ISO claim with no certificate behind it is a logo that links nowhere. 1 3 4
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 pricing artifact is a 14-day trial without credit card; no editions, modules, user or entity counts carry numbers. The buying path is literally a 'Termin vereinbaren' button, so the real invoice for either a 100-employee client or my own book is a sales conversation, not a computation. 4
The In-House Counsel
A 14-day trial without credit card is published, but not a single price, module boundary or scale step appears in the record, and the commercial path offered is 'Termin vereinbaren' — a sales conversation. The real invoice is incomputable from public pages. 4
The Drafted Generalist
The only number anywhere is 14 days free with no credit card — friendly, but it is not a price. Editions, modules and per-entity costs all sit behind 'Termin vereinbaren,' and the 3-step onboarding with personal expert accompaniment tells me software and consulting are entangled, so the real invoice is a sales conversation. 3 4
The Lead Auditor
The only public commercial fact is a 14-day trial without credit card; no edition, module or entity pricing appears anywhere, and the sales path is a booked consultation ('Termin vereinbaren'). The real invoice is incomputable from these pages. 4
The IT Integrator
Not a single public price anywhere: only a 14-day trial without credit card and a 'Termin vereinbaren' button routing every configuration to a sales conversation. That is the 0 anchor described verbatim. 4
The Skeptic
The only number the public pages offer is '14 Tage gratis – keine Kreditkarte erforderlich'; every configuration past the trial is a 'Termin vereinbaren' sales meeting with experts who 'in person' accompany the audit — consulting bundled, prices unpublished, invoice incomputable by design. 3 4
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 ⚠ unverified | 3/3 pts | 1 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 17 Sep 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Legal entity. The address comes from the footer of marketing pages; the linked Impressum itself was not captured and no commercial register entry (Amtsgericht/HRB) is given.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency, Subprocessors. 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.
- 9 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
- 4 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
- 3 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
- 3 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
- 2 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (14)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.planitprima.com Checked 17 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 DSMS product page www.planitprima.com Checked 17 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Data subject rights feature page www.planitprima.com Checked 17 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Audit feature page www.planitprima.com Checked 17 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Data processing agreement (dpa) www.planitprima.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 6 Security / trust page — found from the homepage www.planitprima.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 7 Records & DPIA depth — found from sitemap www.planitprima.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Records & DPIA depth — found from sitemap www.planitprima.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Data subject rights & incidents — found from sitemap www.planitprima.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Data subject rights & incidents — found from sitemap www.planitprima.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Privacy regime coverage — found from sitemap www.planitprima.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Privacy regime coverage — found from sitemap www.planitprima.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap www.planitprima.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap www.planitprima.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →