Data Protection
TrustWorks
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by TrustWorks · www.trustworks.io
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Link to this page
Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds.
The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where
that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.
TrustWorks at a glance
- Vendor
- TrustWorks
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Default not stated; pages mention the EU source, captured 20 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates TrustWorks 2.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. TrustWorks is a privacy management platform whose strongest showing is privacy management, clustering at 7 to 8: judges credit AI-assisted records of processing synced to a real-time data map, DPIA screening with reassessment triggers, and a recommendation engine suggesting lawful bases and retention schedules. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 20 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 21 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
TrustWorks is a privacy management platform whose strongest showing is privacy management, clustering at 7 to 8: judges credit AI-assisted records of processing synced to a real-time data map, DPIA screening with reassessment triggers, and a recommendation engine suggesting lawful bases and retention schedules. Weakest is sovereignty at 1 to 2: the captured homepage states that personal data remains within the EEA and privacy experts are based in Europe, but the judges found no public information on the legal entity's jurisdiction, ownership, a published data processing agreement or subprocessors. The bench splits on framework coverage, spanning 5 to 7: higher scores credit California content current through 2026 obligations, 2027 automated-decision deadlines and phased 2028-2030 certification, while lower scores point to no public information on UK, Swiss or German variants behind a claim of more than 80 worldwide regulations. Rights and incident handling scores 5 to 6: requests are operational, erasure executes in Jira and LDAP, but the pages show no breach register, 72-hour clock or authority-notification output. Only a free start and a free OneTrust migration trial are published.
Speaks for it
- Privacy management scores cluster at 7 to 8, on AI-assisted records of processing synced to a real-time data map with DPIA screening triggers and reusable templates
- Jira and LDAP connectors perform discovery, classification and actual erasure under GDPR and retention policies
- Data subject requests are consolidated across channels with identity verification, duplicate detection and a no-code workflow builder
- California content is current through the 2026 obligations, the 2027 automated-decision deadline and phased 2028-2030 certification
- Assessments preserve advice, decisions, versions and an audit-ready history with recurring reviews and assigned owners
Held against it
- Sovereignty scores sit at 1 to 2, with no public information on legal entity jurisdiction, ownership, a published data processing agreement or subprocessors
- No public information on a breach register, the 72-hour clock or authority-notification output
- Integration evidence stops at two named connectors, with no public information on a documented API, webhooks or SSO and SCIM
- No public information on exportable evidence packs, auditor access roles or reconstructing a record's state at a past date
- No public information on UK, Swiss or German law variants, or on the list behind the more-than-80 regulations claim
Best for
- You need a connected record of processing activities, with AI-assisted records, a real-time data map and DPIA screening with reassessment triggers
- Your team handles data subject requests from support tools, email and forms and already runs Jira or LDAP, where erasure executes under GDPR and retention policies
- You operate under CCPA/CPRA and need maintained California content alongside an AI Act governance module
- You are moving off a legacy privacy tool such as OneTrust and want to test the free migration trial first
Avoid if
- Your procurement requires a documented chain — legal entity jurisdiction, a published data processing agreement, a subprocessor list — before a platform holds your entire register
- You need evidenced breach handling: a breach register, the 72-hour clock and authority-notification output
- Your audit defence depends on exportable evidence packs, auditor access roles or showing a record's state at a past date
- Your estate reaches beyond Jira and LDAP and needs a documented API, webhooks or SSO and SCIM
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Records & DPIA depth | 3.5 of 5 |
| Data subject rights & incidents | 2.5 of 5 |
| Privacy regime coverage | 3.5 of 5 |
| Audit readiness & evidence | 2.5 of 5 |
| Integrations & automation | 3.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1 of 5 |
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 record of processing activities is genuinely the spine here — AI-assisted, synced to a real-time data map, with screening triggers, reusable templates and connected assessments that reuse common information across DPIA, TIA and AI impact types, plus a recommendation engine suggesting lawful bases and retention schedules. Vendor management exists as a module, but I found no public information on TOM modeling, group structures, or reuse across mandates — for a consultancy running thirty registers, that silence matters. Close to a connected system of record, but not yet provably one for multi-client work. 1 2 3
The In-House Counsel
The connected model is real and visible: records of processing sync automatically to the data map, DPIA screening and triggers derive from the record with reusable templates, lawful basis and retention schedules are recommended in-system, and vendor onboarding carries contracts, roles, purposes and evidence. What I could not verify is how technical and organisational measures are modelled, or any group-level template or multi-mandate reuse — for a company with subsidiaries, that gap means copy-paste returns. 1 2 3
The Drafted Generalist
The records and assessment pieces are genuinely connected: records of processing stay synced with the data map, assessments run off reusable templates with screening triggers, risk scoring and their own audit trail, and the recommendation engine even suggests lawful bases and retention schedules — exactly the software-knows-the-law help I need. I found no public information on technical and organisational measures modelled per activity or multi-group reuse, so it stops just short of the fully connected record. 1 2 3
The Lead Auditor
This is a genuinely connected core: the record of processing activities syncs with the data map, healthchecks find unlinked repositories, DPIA screening and triggers hang off the record with reusable templates and industry taxonomy, and vendor onboarding plus lawful-basis and retention recommendations sit in the same model. I found no public information on TOM modeling depth or multi-client mandates, which is the distance between a strong showing and the system-of-record claim. 1 2 3
The IT Integrator
The record of processing activities is genuinely connected: AI-assisted records sync to a real-time data map, reassessment triggers fire when processing or risk changes, and a recommendation engine supplies lawful basis, retention schedules and missing-activity detection rather than a blank form. Vendor oversight and connected assessment types are evidenced, but we found no public information on how TOMs are modeled or on reusable group templates, which is what separates a deep register from a merely good one. 1 2 3
The Skeptic
The connected story is real, not brochure-ware: processing activities sync to a live data map, DPIA screening, risk scoring and reassessment triggers hang off the record, and vendor oversight carries contracts, roles and purposes across the lifecycle. But legal basis arrives only as an AI suggestion, mitigation measures are never framed as technical and organisational measures, and we found no public information on reusable group templates or outputs a supervisory authority accepts. 1 2 3 7
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
Rights handling is operationally serious: multi-channel intake consolidated into one repository, identity verification and duplicate detection, a no-code workflow builder with automations, and erasure actually executed in Jira and LDAP under GDPR and retention policies. But the incident half of the picture is dark — I found no public information on a breach register, the 72-hour clock, or authority-notification output. Strong on rights, unevidenced on breaches. 4 5 7 8 9
The In-House Counsel
The request half is strong: multi-channel intake into one repository, identity verification and duplicate detection, a no-code workflow builder with automations, and erasure actually executed in Jira and LDAP under GDPR retention rules. But this criterion has two halves, and I found no public information on a breach register, a 72-hour clock or authority-notification output — until a vendor shows me the Article 33 workflow, I cannot defend relying on it. 1 4 5 8 9
The Drafted Generalist
The rights side is real operations, not a log: requests arrive from email, support tools and a form, identity is verified, duplicates are caught automatically, and the Jira and LDAP connectors actually erase personal data under GDPR and retention rules. But I found no public information on breach handling at all — no breach register, no 72-hour authority notification workflow — and that is the half I would most dread handling in Outlook. 4 5 8 9
The Lead Auditor
The request half is operational: multi-channel intake, identity verification, duplicate detection, a no-code workflow builder with automations, and documented access and erasure execution in Jira and LDAP against retention policies. I found no public information on a breach register, the 72-hour clock, or authority notification output, so half of this criterion sits unevidenced and the whole lands mid-bench. 1 4 5 8 9
The IT Integrator
Request handling is operational: intake from support tools and email in one repository, identity verification with duplicate detection, a no-code workflow builder, and erasure actually executed in Jira and LDAP against retention policies. We found no public information on a breach register, the 72-hour clock or authority notification output, so the incident half of this criterion is unevidenced. 1 5 8 9
The Skeptic
The request half is well evidenced — multi-channel intake into one repository, identity verification with duplicate detection, deadline emphasis, and deletion actually executed in Jira and LDAP under GDPR retention rules. The incident half stands on nothing: we found no public information on a breach register, a 72-hour clock, or authority-notification output. 4 5 8 9
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
More than eighty privacy and AI regulations are claimed, AI Act duties are carried by a dedicated governance module, and the CCPA content runs current through the January 2026 obligations on risk assessments, cybersecurity audits and automated decision-making technology. The connected assessment model reuses one information basis across DPIA, PIA, TIA and AI impact types rather than re-documenting per regime. I found no public information on per-country variants or a documented update cadence when the law moves. 1 3 7
The In-House Counsel
The CCPA pages show legal content someone actually maintains — the 2025 revenue threshold, the 2026 risk-assessment and audit duties, phased 2028-2030 certification and the 2027 ADMT deadline — which is exactly what I look for, alongside an AI Act governance module and a claim of eighty-plus regulations. What I could not verify is one-record-many-regimes mapping or per-country variants; a coverage count is not proof that a single processing record satisfies GDPR and Swiss practice at once. 1 3 7
The Drafted Generalist
The vendor claims more than 80 privacy and AI regulations, with genuinely deep California content down to the 2026 risk-assessment and 2027 automated-decision deadlines, a dedicated AI Act governance module, and connected assessments that reuse one information base. I found no public information on country variants like the German or Swiss or UK laws, or on how often the legal content is refreshed when the law moves. 1 3 7
The Lead Auditor
Captured pages run GDPR and a thoroughly current CCPA/CPRA on the shared data map — systems, vendors, personal-information categories and data flows serving both regimes — alongside an AI Act governance module, TIA and LIA assessment types, and a California page tracking obligations out to 2028-2030, which is visible regime maintenance. The eighty-regulation figure is a vendor claim without a list, and I found no public information on national variants such as the Swiss or UK regimes. 1 3 7
The IT Integrator
The vendor claims more than 80 worldwide privacy and AI regulations, with a dedicated captured page for CCPA and an AI Governance module for AI Act duties, and connected assessments that reuse common information across DPIA, TIA and AI impact types. We found no public information on national variants such as BDSG, the Swiss FADP or UK GDPR, or on any documented update cadence as regimes evolve. 1 3 7
The Skeptic
The California pages are genuinely current — 2026 obligations, automated-decision deadlines from 2027, phased audit certification through 2030 — and an AI Act module plus connected assessments that reuse information across types exist. But "more than 80 worldwide regulations" is a number with no list behind it, the GDPR page yielded no confirmed capabilities, and we found no public information on UK, Swiss or German variants or one-record-many-regimes mapping. 1 3 6 7
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
Versioned records, preserved advice, decisions and an audit-ready history, an audit trail with recurring reviews, and owner assignment give the beginnings of defensible documentation. But I found no public information on report generators for authorities or management, exportable evidence packs, auditor access roles, or reconstruction of the state on a given date — assembling a client-ready audit file still looks like days of manual work. 3 7
The In-House Counsel
Versioned decisions, advice and an audit-ready history are claimed, with owners assigned to actions and evidence preserved in risk assessments — a reasonable start toward defensibility. I found no public information on auditor access roles, management or authority report generators, or an answer to "show me the state on date X", so assembling the audit file still rests on manual work. 3 7
The Drafted Generalist
Advice, decisions and versions are preserved with an accountable history, owners are assigned, recurring reviews are built in, and a RoPA health check flags unlinked data assets automatically — better than my folder of dated PDFs. I found no public information on report generators for authorities or management, exportable evidence packs, or auditor access roles, so I cannot tell how quickly a full audit file comes together. 2 3 7
The Lead Auditor
A named audit readiness module promises an accountable history of actions and decisions, and assessments preserve advice, decisions, versions and an audit-ready history with recurring reviews and remediation tracking — that is versioned records, not a folder assembled the week before. I found no public information on evidence packs on demand, auditor access roles, or reconstructing the state on a given date, which is exactly what I would need before signing off. 3 7
The IT Integrator
Assessments preserve advice, decisions, versions and what the vendor calls an audit-ready history, with owners assigned and an accountable trail of actions and decisions. We found no public information on report generators for authorities or management, auditor access roles, or exportable proof packs, so the assembly of a full audit file rests on claims rather than evidenced tooling. 3 7
The Skeptic
The vendor's own words are "preserve an accountable history of actions and decisions" and "preserve advice, decisions, versions and an audit-ready history" — versions, approvals and recurring reviews per assessment. We found no public information on exportable evidence packs, auditor access roles, or reconstructing a record's state at a past date, which is the difference between a history and a defence. 3 7
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
Real connectors doing real work — discovery and classification of personal information in Jira and LDAP, automated privacy-request fulfilment out to those same systems, pre-built third-party connectors plus custom components for in-house tools, and AI assistance from RoPA building to activity screening. What's missing is plumbing: I found no public information on a documented API, webhooks, or SSO/SCIM, which caps how deep into a client's estate this can reach. 1 5 8 9
The In-House Counsel
The connectors do real work rather than re-typing: discovery and classification in Jira and LDAP, automated fulfilment of privacy requests with erasure executed in those systems under retention policies, plus no-code DSR workflows and an AI assistant for lawful basis and completeness. I found no public information on a documented API, webhooks or SSO and SCIM, so I cannot say the automation reaches beyond the named connectors. 1 5 8 9
The Drafted Generalist
The connectors do real work instead of import-export: Jira and LDAP are read for discovery and classification and written to for fulfilling and erasing privacy requests, the data map pulls integrations in seconds, and recommendations for processing activities come from the tools we already use. I found no public information on a documented API, webhooks, or single sign-on and user provisioning. 1 5 8 9
The Lead Auditor
Two connectors are evidenced end to end — Jira and LDAP doing discovery, classification and actual erasure execution — plus automated request fulfilment, AI-assisted screening of activities, and legacy-tool import. I found no public information on a documented API, SSO or SCIM, or webhooks, so the feed from the real estate looks real but narrow. 1 2 5 8 9
The IT Integrator
This is what I care about most: pre-built connectors discover and classify personal information in LDAP and Jira, automate privacy requests there, and the DSR pipeline offers connectors plus custom components for engineering teams to wire in in-house tools — that is sync, not a CSV drawbridge. But we found no public information on a documented REST API, webhooks, SSO/SCIM or connectors for HR or CMDB sources, so I cannot verify the platform feeds the wider estate beyond these two systems. 1 5 8 9
The Skeptic
Two named connectors do real work: Jira and LDAP each support discovery, classification and actual erasure under GDPR retention rules, and DSR fulfilment is automated across them with custom components for in-house tools. Beyond those two the picture thins fast — "other SaaS vendors" is unnamed, and we found no public information on a documented API, SSO or SCIM, webhooks, or HR and asset sources. 5 8 9
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
One captured page states that personal data remains within the EEA, and the vendor says its privacy experts are based in Europe — but beyond that I found no public information on the legal entity's jurisdiction, ownership, a data processing agreement, or any subprocessor list. For the platform that would hold thirty clients' records of processing activities, that is not a defensible chain to put in front of a client's legal team. 1
The In-House Counsel
For the system that would hold our register of processing I need the whole chain documented, and here the captured pages give different indications on data residency while legal entity, ownership, subprocessor exposure and a public DPA are all without public information I could verify. Europe-based experts and an EEA-residency statement are not a jurisdictional defence I can put in a file. 1
The Drafted Generalist
The homepage states personal data remains within the EEA and that the privacy experts are Europe-based, but the captured pages do not confirm where the company is domiciled, who owns it, or which subprocessors see my data. For the platform that would hold my entire register of processing, I found no public information on a data processing agreement or a subprocessor list, so I cannot vouch for this chain to my boss. 1 4
The Lead Auditor
One page states personal data remains within the EEA and the support experts are Europe-based, and that is the entirety of the sovereignty record I can verify. I found no public information on the legal entity's jurisdiction, a DPA, TOMs, or any subprocessor list — for a system that would hold the buyer's entire RoPA, that is not a chain I can defend. 1
The IT Integrator
The homepage states that personal data remains within the EEA, though this was not confirmed on the vendor's own captured pages, and privacy experts are said to be based in Europe — staff location, not entity. We found no public information on the legal entity's jurisdiction, ownership, subprocessor list or a published DPA, which is thin for the system that would hold the register of processing. 1
The Skeptic
The homepage promises that personal data remains within the EEA and that its privacy experts are based in Europe — a residency claim, which is more than nothing. For the platform that would hold a buyer's entire register, though, we found no public information on the legal entity's jurisdiction, ownership, a published DPA, or any subprocessor list. 1
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
A free start and a free OneTrust migration trial are the only public pricing signals — no figures, editions, billing periods, or module and entity boundaries anywhere I looked. That is the B2B norm in this market, but a buyer, let alone a consultancy pricing client mandates, cannot compute even a rough invoice from public pages. 1 2 8
The In-House Counsel
Public pricing amounts to a free starting tier and a free OneTrust migration trial; every module boundary, entity count and the real invoice is a sales conversation. I found no public information on edition prices, billing periods or setup fees. 1 2
The Drafted Generalist
The only pricing facts published are that you can start free, plus a free OneTrust migration trial and a demo button — no figures for modules, users, entities, setup or renewals anywhere I could see. I cannot compute anything close to a real invoice for an 80-employee company from the public pages alone. 1 2
The Lead Auditor
The public pages offer a free start, a free OneTrust migration trial, and demo booking, and nothing computable beyond that. I found no public information on any price, edition boundary, or billing period, so the real invoice is entirely a sales conversation — unremarkable in this market, but worth stating plainly. 1 2
The IT Integrator
Public pages show a free start, a free OneTrust migration trial and a demo booking, but we found no public prices for any edition, module or scale step, so the real invoice is a sales conversation. That is the market norm here, and it is all the evidence there is. 1 2
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 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 | Not determined | — | uncited 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 |
Questions about TrustWorks
Is TrustWorks European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where TrustWorks is based.
Where does TrustWorks store data?
The default storage location for customer data is not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026. The vendor’s pages mention the EU as hosting location, per the vendor’s page captured 20 Oct 2026.
Does TrustWorks have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to TrustWorks?
As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates preeco | datenschutz (4/5), Dastra (3/5) and caralegal (3/5) highest among the other 41 Data Protection products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is preeco | datenschutz (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: TrustWorks alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 20 Oct 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.
- 3 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
- 1 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
Sources (9)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.trustworks.io Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Records & DPIA depth — found from sitemap www.trustworks.io Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Records & DPIA depth — found from sitemap www.trustworks.io Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Data subject rights & incidents — found from sitemap www.trustworks.io Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Data subject rights & incidents — found from sitemap www.trustworks.io Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Privacy regime coverage — found from sitemap www.trustworks.io Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Privacy regime coverage — found from sitemap www.trustworks.io Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap www.trustworks.io Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap www.trustworks.io Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →