Data Protection

Robin Data ComplianceOS

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.

An AI-assisted analysis of public evidence — not a hands-on test.

Every score, rationale and verdict on this page is AI-generated. Every claim cites the source it was read from. Nothing here is a human star review — and no score can be bought. How scores are made →

Method and versions

The External DPO v2.0 · The In-House Counsel v2.0 · The Drafted Generalist v2.1 · The Lead Auditor v2.0 · The IT Integrator v2.0 · The Skeptic v2.1 · rubric v2 · evaluated 15 Sep 2026

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 Drafted Generalist

Weighted verdict

Office manager at an 80-employee firm who got compliance added to her job title, not her calendar. Optimizes for guided workflows in plain language and software that knows the law so she does not have to. Rejects consultant-shaped platforms that assume a compliance department.

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

Scored by The Drafted Generalist

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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.

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

Do you know more about Robin Data ComplianceOS? Tell us Report an error on this page

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 →