whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Data Protection

preeco | datenschutz

EU-Made Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: 1 of 4 dimensions proven

0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.

by preeco GmbH & Co. KG · www.preeco.de

Compare with caralegal → Compare with audatis MANAGER → 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 Lead Auditor

Weighted verdict

Audits management systems for a living and has seen every folder of screenshots. Optimizes for revision-safe history, evidence packs on demand, and a defensible answer to "show me the state on date X". Rejects systems where the audit trail is assembled the week before the audit.

Same scores as the panel view — this lens weights them the way this judge cares.

Scored by The Lead Auditor

Records & DPIA depth

How this is scored

The DSMS core: records of processing (RoPA/VVT), data protection impact assessments, processor/DPA management and TOMs — how deeply the legal artifacts are modeled and connected.

0 — Document templates in a folder tree; the "register" is a Word file with version numbers in the filename.

3 — A structured RoPA with basic fields and a DPIA questionnaire, but processors, TOMs and legal bases live outside the system.

5 — RoPA and DPIA as linked modules with templates; processor management and TOM assignment exist but are shallow, and group reuse is copy-paste.

8 — A connected data model — processing activities linked to systems, processors, TOMs and legal bases — with DPIA triggers derived from the record, reusable group templates, and outputs a supervisory authority accepts.

10 — Privacy records as a system of record: the RoPA drives DPIAs, processor management and TOM coverage from one data model, multi-client/mandate capability included, and the documentation is audit-ready without manual assembly.

Report an error

The Lead Auditor

Processing activities carry every Art. 30 field and are linked graphically to systems, technical and organizational measures and Art. 28 contracts, with recipient-to-contract coverage created by automatic name matching and gaps surfacing as marked rows. Impact assessments, including transfer assessments for third-country cases, run off the same record with a necessity pre-check, measures are versioned and linked, and mandate capability with cross-client inheritance is built in rather than copy-paste. We found no public information on a coverage view showing measures complete across every record, which is what would close the loop. 1 2 16 17 7

Report an error

Data subject rights & incidents

How this is scored

The operational half of the DSMS: data subject request handling with statutory clocks, breach register and authority notification, deletion concepts that actually delete.

0 — Requests arrive by email and live there; breaches are a phone call and a memo.

3 — A request log and a breach list exist, but deadlines are manual, intake is unstructured, and deletion rules are documentation rather than workflow.

5 — DSR workflows with the Art. 12 clock tracked, structured breach register with the 72-hour clock, deletion concepts assignable to records; automation is reminders.

8 — Intake channels for requests (portal/form), identity-check support, deadline automation with escalation, breach severity assessment and authority-report output, deletion rules tied to the RoPA with execution tracking.

10 — Rights and incidents as operations: end-to-end request handling an authority audit walks through, breach workflows that produce the Art. 33 notification, and deletion automation with evidence that the deletion happened.

Report an error

The Lead Auditor

Requests come in through embeddable web forms, identity verification and rejection grounds are documented fields, replies go out as one-time encrypted links, and every request type under Art. 15–22 runs under automatic deadline monitoring with proactive warnings; breaches carry severity classification, a risk matrix, 72-hour monitoring and nine ready notification templates for Art. 33, Art. 34 and the German BSI with an unambiguous deadline status per report. Requests and incidents link to the affected processing activities, and deletion rules with deadlines, procedures and responsibilities derive from deletion classes tied to the register. We found no public information on escalation chains for missed deadlines or on evidence that a deletion was actually executed. 18 19 20 7

Report an error

Privacy regime coverage

How this is scored

Which privacy regimes the product actually operationalizes — GDPR, BDSG, Swiss nDSG, UK GDPR, ePrivacy, EU AI Act privacy duties — and whether one record maps across them or each regime is a fresh island.

0 — One regime, hard-coded; anything else is "on the roadmap".

3 — GDPR plus one national law as separate checklists; the same processing activity is documented once per regime.

5 — The major regimes for its market with partial cross-mapping; newer duties (AI Act, ePrivacy changes) present as content packs of varying depth.

8 — Broad current coverage with one-record-many-regimes mapping and visible maintenance as regimes evolve.

10 — Regime coverage as a living product: multiple privacy regimes on one data basis, per-country variants, and documented update cadence when the law moves.

Report an error

The Lead Auditor

The GDPR stack is deep and German in flavor — the register, breaches under Art. 33/34 alongside German BSI reporting duties, Art. 35 assessments including Schrems II transfer analysis, and the Bavarian supervisory authority's questionnaire at the push of a button — with EU AI Act risk classification running in the same system and roughly monthly updates as the visible maintenance cadence. One record therefore serves two regimes for the home market. We found no public information on Swiss, UK or ePrivacy regime support. 15 2 18 23 7

Report an error

Audit readiness & evidence

How this is scored

Whether the system produces defensible proof: revision-safe history, evidence collection, reports for auditors, authorities and management.

0 — Exports are screenshots; history is overwritten in place.

3 — PDF reports exist but evidence is attached ad hoc and changes leave no reliable trail.

5 — Versioned records, standard report generators for the core registers, evidence attachments per activity; assembling a full audit file still takes days.

8 — Revision-safe change history, audit-scoped evidence packs on demand, management and authority reports current at a click, auditor access roles.

10 — Audit readiness as a standing state: continuous documentation status per regime and scope, exportable proof packs an auditor accepts as-is, and a defensible answer to "show me the state on date X".

Report an error

The Lead Auditor

Every approval freezes an immutable revision with SHA-256 checksums and color-coded comparison, described as a fixed documentation state at any point in time, and an automatic log records document changes and account administration with timestamp, user and action. Authority and management output is push-button — status reports, procedure files per activity, the Bavarian questionnaire, scheduled cross-tenant DPO reports — and the audits module separates answering from managing. We found no public information on evidence attachments collected per activity or exportable proof bundles, so assembling a full file still looks partly manual. 2 7 18 22 23

Report an error

Integrations & automation

How this is scored

Whether the platform feeds from the real IT estate — directory import, ticketing, API — and automates the recurring privacy work instead of re-typing it.

0 — A closed island: manual entry in, PDF out, no API.

3 — CSV/Excel import and export; no live connections, no API worth the name.

5 — Directory import (AD/Entra), a documented REST API for core objects, a handful of native connectors (ticketing or SSO); automation is reminders and recurrence.

8 — Real connector set (ticketing, HR or asset sources), webhooks, SSO/SCIM, workflow automation with delegation and escalation, useful AI assistance with human review.

10 — The platform behaves like infrastructure: API parity for the data model, event streams, bidirectional sync with the estate, and automation that measurably removes the recurring toil (reviews, attestations, evidence pulls) rather than renaming it.

Report an error

The Lead Auditor

The vendor's own pages describe a closed system with no public REST API — custom endpoints are developed only for Private Cloud and On-Premises — and standard-tier data exchange is DOCX/XLSX import against PDF/DOCX/XLSX export, with legacy migrations run as individual projects. Above a pure file island sit an MCP server letting external AI assistants query processing activities and export revisions under application access rights, embeddable intake forms, DeepL translation, and SAML2 single sign-on restricted to the upper hosting variants. We found no public information on directory import, ticketing or HR connectors, webhooks, or user provisioning sync. 3 15 24 2

Report an error

European sovereignty

How this is scored

Where the compliance record of the whole company actually lives and under whose law — entity, hosting, subprocessors, DPA. A platform that maps your processing is itself your most concentrated processing.

0 — Non-EU entity, non-EU-default hosting, no public DPA or subprocessor list — for the system holding your RoPA.

3 — A DPA exists and an EU region is available on request or on top tiers; subprocessor exposure to US CLOUD Act reach is broad or undocumented.

5 — EU hosting is the default, DPA and subprocessor list published; the vendor or a critical subprocessor is still within non-European jurisdictional reach.

8 — EU entity, EU hosting with named data centers, published subprocessor list free of content-touching non-EU processors, DPA and TOMs public.

10 — Jurisdictionally clean end to end: European ownership, EU-only hosting and subprocessors, on-premises or sovereign-cloud options, and the whole chain documented publicly.

Report an error

The Lead Auditor

A German company in Ulm hosts Cloud and Private Cloud exclusively in named Hetzner data centers in Nürnberg and Falkenstein, offers on-premises, publishes its Art. 28 contract with two-week subprocessor change notice and downloadable technical and organizational measures, and states no third-country transfer of product data; AI features are off by default and run on customer-held keys. The privacy notice additionally names UpCloud Oy of Finland as a hosting subprocessor, so the captured pages give different pictures of where hosting occurs, though both named providers sit inside the EU. Ownership structure is not publicly documented, which is what keeps this short of the cleanest band. 5 6 10 15 3

Report an error

Pricing transparency not rated — the vendor publishes no price

How this is scored

Whether a buyer can compute the real invoice — per module, per entity, per year, with consulting unbundled — from public pages alone. Unpublished pricing is the B2B norm in this market, so this criterion describes rather than condemns; the benches weight it accordingly.

0 — No public prices at all; every configuration is a sales conversation.

3 — An entry price exists, but module add-ons, entity counts or bundled consulting make the real total incomputable.

5 — Most editions carry real numbers with billing period stated and software separated from services; at least one commonly needed module or scale step is unpriced.

8 — Every edition and module priced publicly with entity/user boundaries and setup fees stated; only genuine corporate-group contracts are custom.

10 — Complete price computability: modules, scale steps, service packages and renewal rules public, so the invoice for a 100-employee company and a 10-client consultancy is a two-minute exercise.

Report an error

The Lead Auditor

Not one price figure appears on the captured pages: the license is described as scaling with employees, modules and hosting variant, with no setup fees and no cancellation periods, but the real invoice is not computable without a sales conversation. One page promises all GDPR obligations without add-on modules or hidden surcharges, while other captures list optional paid items such as audit catalogs, DeepL translation, premium support and migration projects. We found no public information on entry pricing, per-module figures or scale steps. 3 15 2 7

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

1 of 4 dimensions proven

Built only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.

Ownership Not determined — uncited Report an error
Data residency Not determined ⚠ unverified — uncited Report an error
Subprocessors Not determined ⚠ unverified — uncited Report an error

Where this could be wrong

What we left out

A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.

Sources (25)

The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.

  1. 1 Vendor homepage www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 +3 earlier captures: 15 Sep 2026, 31 Aug 2026, 24 Aug 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Data protection product page www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 +3 earlier captures: 16 Sep 2026, 15 Sep 2026, 31 Aug 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Information security product page www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 +4 earlier captures: 16 Sep 2026, 31 Aug 2026, 24 Aug 2026, 23 Aug 2026 Details →
  4. 4 About page www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Imprint www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Privacy policy www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 GDPR software page www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 +4 earlier captures: 16 Sep 2026, 11 Sep 2026, 31 Aug 2026, 24 Aug 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Product documentation library www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 +3 earlier captures: 15 Sep 2026, 31 Aug 2026, 24 Aug 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Hosting variants page www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 16 Sep 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Published DPA (AVV) for cloud customers www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  11. 11 Multi-entity use case page www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  12. 12 AI-assisted GDPR use case page www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  13. 13 MFA documentation www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 15 Sep 2026 Details →
  14. 14 Access rights system documentation www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  15. 15 Full product specification (Leistungsbeschreibung) www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  16. 16 Records & DPIA depth — found from sitemap www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  17. 17 Records & DPIA depth — found from sitemap www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  18. 18 Data subject rights & incidents — found from sitemap www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  19. 19 Data subject rights & incidents — found from sitemap www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  20. 20 Privacy regime coverage — found from sitemap www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  21. 21 Privacy regime coverage — found from sitemap www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  22. 22 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  23. 23 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  24. 24 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  25. 25 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →