Data Protection
Robin Data ComplianceOS
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 Robin Data GmbH · www.robin-data.io
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.
No written verdict for this product
The panel scored Robin Data ComplianceOS, but the summary our synthesizer wrote did not survive our own contradiction check — twice. Rather than print a paragraph we cannot stand behind, we print none. Every score, rationale and source below is unaffected; read them and draw the conclusion yourself.
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 two product pages in this registry produced zero confirmed facts — no RoPA, no DPIA, no processor or TOM modeling anywhere — just a marketing label 'ComplianceOS' and 700-customers copy. For a thirty-mandate practice, that silence is the finding: I cannot credit a records model I cannot see, reusable templates included. 2 3 4
The In-House Counsel
The evidence confirms only that ComplianceOS exists as an 'eigenentwickelte' SaaS platform and that the external DPO service implements requirements 'in der Robin Data Datenschutz-Software' — no captured fact names a RoPA, DPIA questionnaire, processor register, TOMs or legal bases, and even the dedicated data-protection product page yielded nothing quotable. I cannot defend buying a DSMS on a capability record this empty. 3 4 5
The Drafted Generalist
The only product evidence is marketing: 'hochsichere, eigenentwickelte... Software-as-a-Service-Plattform ComplianceOS' for compliance process management, while the captured product pages confirmed not a single RoPA field, DPIA questionnaire, processor entry or TOM. A self-developed SaaS platform is more than a folder of Word files, so above 0 — but I can't verify even anchor-3 register structure. 2 3 4
The Lead Auditor
A purpose-built Datenschutz-SaaS is confirmed and the external DPO's scope explicitly includes implementing requirements 'in der Robin Data Datenschutz-Software', so the register is more than a folder tree — but not one fact touches RoPA fields, DPIA logic, TOMs or processor management. Pure absence on the legal data model keeps this below rubric level 3. 4 5
The IT Integrator
The evidence confirms a 'Datenschutz-Software' SaaS named ComplianceOS exists and stops there — not one captured fact about a RoPA, DPIA module, processor management, TOMs or legal bases. I cannot architect an audit around a register model the vendor's own captured pages don't describe, so this sits just above folder-templates and well below a structured RoPA. 3 4 5
The Skeptic
The platform overview and data protection product page — the pages that would prove RoPA, DPIA, processor or TOM modeling — yielded not one confirmed fact. All the evidence establishes is that a self-developed SaaS named ComplianceOS exists; whether a structured register lives inside it or it is a shell around the external-DPO consulting is anyone's guess. 2 3 4 5
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
Nothing in the evidence touches data subject requests, Art. 12 clocks, the 72-hour breach clock or deletion workflows; the closest fact is that customers may ask the vendor written data protection questions at any time, which is support, not DSR operations. Unproven statutory machinery earns the floor, not credit. 5
The In-House Counsel
Nothing captured evidences DSR intake, an Art. 12 clock, a 72-hour breach register, Art. 33 notification output or deletion execution — the operational half of a DSMS is entirely undocumented on the platform and product pages,. Until a vendor shows me a breach workflow that produces the authority notification, this sits at the bottom of the scale. 2 3
The Drafted Generalist
Nothing in the registry evidences request intake, a breach clock, or deletion workflows — the only rights-adjacent service is human: customers 'jederzeit schriftlich Fragen... stellen und fundierte Antworten erhalten' from the external DPO. That's requests arriving by email and living with a consultant, which is exactly the anchor-0 picture. 3 5
The Lead Auditor
Nothing on DSR intake, statutory clocks, breach register or deletion execution — the only request channel evidenced is phone and 'schriftlich Fragen' to a human DPO, which resembles rubric level 0's email-and-phone world more than any workflow. Absence here is information. 5
The IT Integrator
Total silence: no DSR intake channel, no Art. 12 clock, no breach register, no deletion workflow anywhere in the captured pages. Unevidenced means absent, so request handling here defaults to whatever inbox catches it. 1 3
The Skeptic
No fact anywhere mentions DSR workflows, breach registers, statutory clocks or deletion, and the product page is silent. The only rights-adjacent capability is that customers 'jederzeit schriftlich Fragen... stellen und fundierte Antworten erhalten' — requests arrive as written questions to a human, which is the anchor-zero scenario of email plus memo sold under a software label. 5 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
A German legal-tech vendor selling 'Datenschutz-Software' gestures at GDPR, but no confirmed fact names a single regime operationalized — no BDSG, no nDSG, no cross-mapping, nothing. One implied regime with zero evidence is below even the separate-checklists anchor. 4
The In-House Counsel
The vendor is unmistakably German — Stendal register court, 60 partner companies 'bundesweit' — so DSGVO/BDSG is the operating assumption, but no captured fact shows which regimes the software models, whether one record maps across them, or whether anyone maintains the legal content. Legal content nobody visibly maintains is a liability, not a feature. 3 4 6
The Drafted Generalist
The evidence never names a single privacy regime the software operationalizes — no GDPR, BDSG, nDSG or AI Act content appears in any confirmed fact, only German-language pages and a 'datenschutzkonforme' platform. One implied German regime, nothing cross-mapped, nothing evidenced. 3 4
The Lead Auditor
No privacy regime is named in any confirmed fact — GDPR does not even appear verbatim, only a German-market legal-tech positioning. I cannot credit one-record-many-regimes mapping that the evidence nowhere evidences. 4 6
The IT Integrator
Everything captured is German — Stendal register, Merseburg/Leipzig roots, a 'bundesweit' partner network — so GDPR/BDSG orientation is a fair inference, but no regime is named as supported, let alone mapped one-record-many-regimes. No AI Act, no ePrivacy, no update cadence; a single-market guess, not coverage. 4 6
The Skeptic
No regime is ever named in the evidence — not GDPR, not BDSG, not nDSG, not the AI Act — on any captured page. A German external-DPO service scope implies German-law practice around the product, but which regimes the software itself operationalizes, and whether one record maps across them, is pure silence. 4 5 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 only audit in evidence is a human data protection audit bookable as a paid extra on top of the DPO service — that is consulting, not system-generated proof. No revision-safe history, evidence packs or report generators appear in any confirmed fact, so my client-ready reports would be assembled by hand. 5
The In-House Counsel
The only audit-adjacent facts are the vendor's own ISO 27001/9001 certificates and a bookable human 'Datenschutz-Audit' service — vendor certification and consulting hours are not revision-safe change history or exportable evidence packs in the product. No fact about versioning, auditor access or dated-state proof appears anywhere in the capture. 4 5
The Drafted Generalist
The ISO 27001, ISO 9001 and TÜV certifications are credentials of the vendor's house, not of the product — there is no evidence of revision-safe history, report generators, evidence packs or auditor access anywhere, not even on the platform page. One point for the certified vendor; the product's audit story is unevidenced. 2 4
The Lead Auditor
The only audit artifacts evidenced are ISO 27001/9001 certificates for the vendor itself and 'Datenschutz-Audits' sold as bookable consulting on top of the DPO — which suggests the audit file is assembled by humans, not standing in the system. No revision-safe history, evidence packs or report generators appear anywhere in the evidence. 4 5
The IT Integrator
The only audit evidence on this sheet is about the vendor, not the product: ISO 27001/9001 and TÜV certificates for Robin Data GmbH. Nothing on revision-safe history, evidence packs, auditor roles or report generators — an audit here starts from a blank folder. 4
The Skeptic
The only certifications in the evidence are the vendor's own ISO 27001/9001 and TÜV logos — they certify the company's management system, not audit output from the product — and no revision-safe history, report generator or evidence pack appears anywhere. The single 'audit' on offer is a bookable human 'Datenschutz-Audit': consulting doing the work the criterion asks the software to do. 4 5 2
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
Beyond the word 'Automatisierung' in the company boilerplate, the evidence is silent on API, directory import, ticketing, SSO or delegation — for my economics, silence here means thirty clients' recurring toil stays manual and re-typed. A closed island as far as this evidence goes. 4
The In-House Counsel
'Compliance Automation' appears only as a descriptor of the company's mission; no captured fact shows an API, directory import, ticketing connector, SSO or webhook, and the platform overview confirmed nothing operational. For a system meant to feed from the real IT estate, the evidence shows a closed island with a slogan. 2 4
The Drafted Generalist
The word 'Automatisierung (Compliance Automation)' appears, but the registry contains no API, no directory import, no connector, no webhook — nothing between manual entry and the marketing noun. Capturing the platform overview yielded no integration facts at all, which tells me there's nothing worth capturing. 2 4
The Lead Auditor
'Compliance Automation' appears only as a self-description phrase; no API, directory import, connector, webhook or SSO is evidenced. Automation claimed in marketing without a documented integration surface stays at the bottom anchors. 4
The IT Integrator
My deciding criterion, and the evidence fails it: 'Compliance Automation' appears as about-page marketing, but there is not a single fact about a REST API, Entra/AD directory import, ticketing connectors, webhooks or SSO — even CSV import is unevidenced. That is a data island with no visible drawbridge; I cannot feed it from the estate, so compliance data would live or die on re-typing. 2 4
The Skeptic
'Compliance Automation' appears in the vendor blurb with no API, connector, directory import or webhook anywhere behind it — a buzzword carrying the whole claim. A self-developed SaaS plausibly has some I/O, but nothing of the sort is evidenced, so per the anchors the capability does not exist. 4 2
European sovereignty
panel opinion
panel disagrees
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 German entity is solid — Handelsregister HRB 26213 at Amtsgericht Stendal, German address and tax number, plus TÜV/ISO certifications — but no captured page confirms hosting location, a DPA, or a subprocessor list; the evidence's own attributes mark all of it unknown. The platform that would hold my thirty RoPAs is exactly where undocumented subprocessor exposure is unacceptable, so EU entity alone lifts this only to the low-middle. 4 6
The In-House Counsel
E6 pins the entity beyond argument — Robin Data GmbH, Handelsregister HRB 26213, Amtsgericht Stendal — and E4's data-center claims are benchmarked against European peers, so the anchor-0 non-EU posture does not fit. But for the platform that would hold my company's most concentrated processing record, the captured pages show no public DPA, no subprocessor list and no named data centers — exactly rubric level 3's 'undocumented exposure', and not one step higher. 4 6
The Drafted Generalist
The imprint confirms a genuine German GmbH (Amtsgericht Stendal, HRB 26213, German tax and phone numbers) plus TÜV certification, so this is not the non-EU case of rubric level 0 — but hosting location, DPA and any subprocessor list are all unevidenced in the registry. Undocumented subprocessor exposure is precisely the anchor-3 situation, and I can't credit EU-clean hosting without the vendor's own pages saying so. 4 6
The Lead Auditor
The imprint puts the entity in Germany — HRB 26213, Amtsgericht Stendal, German Steuernummer — with ISO 27001 certification and an on-premises option in the provenance, but no DPA, no subprocessor list, and the Frankfurt hosting claim is flagged unconfirmed on the vendor's captured pages. For the system holding a client's RoPA, an undocumented subprocessor chain sits below rubric level 3, which at least requires a DPA to exist. 4 6
The IT Integrator
The entity question is actually settled despite the 'unknown' flags: GmbH with Handelsregister HRB 26213 at Amtsgericht Stendal, German-language pages, 'typische europäische Rechenzentren' and an on-premises option claimed in provenance. But no captured page names the data centers, publishes a DPA or lists subprocessors — the chain holding my RoPA is only half-visible. 4 6
The Skeptic
The imprint does nail down a German entity — Amtsgericht Stendal, HRB 26213, German tax number — so this is not anchor zero. But hosting location has no verbatim support (the 'Frankfurt' provenance line quotes nothing), and DPA, TOMs and subprocessor list are absent from every captured page — for the system that would hold your RoPA, the chain beyond the legal entity is entirely undocumented. 6 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 one captured pricing page prices the external DPO by 'the degree of the customer's data protection requirements' — an effort quote, not a number — with trainings and audits bookable on top, and no software or module price anywhere in the evidence. The scope list is at least itemized, but the invoice is a sales conversation. 5
The In-House Counsel
The captured pricing page prices nothing: the external DPO's fee 'richtet sich nach dem Grad Ihrer Datenschutzanforderungen' — effort-based and quote-only — with trainings and data protection audits as further bookable extras and no software license numbers anywhere. The real invoice is a sales conversation, which the anchors place between 0 and 3; the market norm softens this, but it does not publish it. 5
The Drafted Generalist
The pricing page produced no numbers whatsoever: the external DPO's effort 'richtet sich nach dem Grad Ihrer Datenschutzanforderungen', audits and trainings are 'zusätzlich' bookable, and software pricing is entirely absent. Every configuration is a sales conversation — I cannot compute any invoice from this sheet. 5
The Lead Auditor
The only pricing signal is that external DPO effort 'richtet sich nach dem Grad Ihrer Datenschutzanforderungen', with trainings and audits bookable on top — a sales conversation by design, and no software edition carries a number anywhere in the captured facts. This criterion describes rather than condemns, but there is nothing here a buyer could compute. 5
The IT Integrator
The one pricing page captured contains no numbers at all — the external DPO's 'effort is based on the degree of the customer's data protection requirements', a per-deal quote by definition, with trainings and audits bookable on top. No entry price, no software license price, no module price: the real invoice is a sales conversation. 5
The Skeptic
The pricing page contains no numbers at all: the DPO's fee 'richtet sich nach dem Grad Ihrer Datenschutzanforderungen' and trainings and audits are 'zusätzlich buchbare' extras — every configuration is a sales conversation. Pricing for the ComplianceOS software itself appears nowhere in the captured pages. 5 2 3
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 | 6 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 15 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 imprint never prints the country name itself; "DE" is derived from the German postal address and the German register court (Amtsgericht Stendal).
- 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.
- We found no public information on pricing on the pages we read (robin-data.io, robin-data.io/complianceos, robin-data.io/datenschutz-software, robin-data.io/ueber-uns, robin-data.io/preis-datenschutzbeauftragter, robin-data.io/impressum and 7 more). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- 24 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
- 20 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
- 11 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
- 7 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
- 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
- 1 hosting 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
- 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
- The panel’s written verdict is withheld: our own re-read found claims in it that the evidence does not carry, and a second synthesis did not fix them. The scores and the material below are unaffected. Know more? Tell us
Sources (13)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.robin-data.io Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Platform overview www.robin-data.io Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Data protection product page www.robin-data.io Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 About page www.robin-data.io Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Pricing/DPO price page www.robin-data.io Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 6 Imprint www.robin-data.io Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 7 Records & DPIA depth — found from sitemap help.robin-data.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Data subject rights & incidents — found from sitemap help.robin-data.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Data subject rights & incidents — found from sitemap www.robin-data.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Privacy regime coverage — found from sitemap www.robin-data.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Privacy regime coverage — found from sitemap www.robin-data.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap help.robin-data.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap help.robin-data.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →