Data Protection
Wired Relations
EU-Made Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 2 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Wired Relations ApS · www.wiredrelations.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Wired Relations ApS runs GDPR, ISO 27001 and NIS2 on a shared data basis. It scores highest on integrations and automation, a 5 to 6 range: Azure Active Directory user sync, SSO with user and group provisioning, Slack notifications, a public API and pre-populated vendor questionnaires returned automatically. Audit readiness holds at 5 — the RoPA and SoA generate on demand, questionnaires archive for comparison, and the vendor carries a yearly ISAE 3000-II report. Rights and incidents hold at 3, the weakest area judges weighed — beyond module names for incidents and data subject requests, we found no public information on statutory clocks, 72-hour breach workflows, authority reports or deletion execution. Judges split on framework coverage, 3 to 5: the external DPO's 5 credits shared data reuse and custom frameworks; the lead auditor's 3 rests on GDPR being the only privacy regime evidenced — no Swiss nDSG, UK GDPR or ePrivacy. Sovereignty holds at 5 — EU hosting in Frankfurt and Paris, a published subprocessor list and DPA — but hosts are US-headquartered AWS and MongoDB Atlas, no EU contracting entity stated. Both plans say "Talk to us."
Speaks for it
- Auto-generates the RoPA and SoA on demand, with the SoA exportable to Excel
- Sends vendor audit questionnaires pre-populated, returns answers automatically and keeps historical submissions for comparison
- Synchronises users from Azure Active Directory, with SSO, user and group provisioning, Slack notifications and a public API
- Reuses one data basis across GDPR, ISMS and ISO and implements any custom framework or control set
- Stores all data in EU data centers in Frankfurt and Paris, with a published subprocessor list reviewed yearly and a DPA on offer
Held against it
- Shows only module names for incident handling and data subject requests, with no public information on statutory clocks, 72-hour breach workflows, authority-report output or deletion execution
- No public information found on DPIA workflows, TOM assignment or legal-basis modeling
- Shows GDPR as the only evidenced privacy regime, with no public information on Swiss nDSG, UK GDPR or ePrivacy
- Names the US-headquartered AWS and MongoDB Atlas as hosts, with no EU contracting entity of those parents stated on the page
- No public information found on revision-safe change history or reconstructing the state of records at a past date
Best for
- You run GDPR alongside ISO 27001 and NIS2 and want one shared record rather than parallel registers per regime
- Your team runs recurring vendor audits and wants questionnaires pre-populated, returned automatically and comparable year over year
- You need the RoPA and SoA generated on demand for recurring reporting cycles
- You require EU data residency with hosting in Frankfurt and Paris
Avoid if
- You need operational data subject request and breach handling with statutory clocks and authority-report output — the lowest-scored area shows module names only
- Your privacy footprint extends beyond GDPR into regimes such as Swiss nDSG or UK GDPR, for which we found no public coverage information
- You need DPIA workflows, TOM assignment or legal-basis modeling — the evidence the privacy management scoring found missing
- You must show an auditor the state of records on a given date, with no public information on revision-safe change history
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
Processing activities, systems, vendors and subprocessors live as linked modules with an auto-generated RoPA and cross-framework data reuse, which is the right spine. I found no public information on DPIA modeling, TOM assignment, legal bases or reusable group templates, and the pricing page shows one company in the company structure — single-tenant thinking for a thirty-mandate practice. 1 2 3 7
The In-House Counsel
Processing activities, vendors and subprocessors are modeled as modules with an auto-generated RoPA and data reused across frameworks, which is a genuine register rather than a folder of documents. But I found no public information on DPIA tooling, TOM assignment or legal-basis modeling — the impact-assessment machinery I have to defend is not evidenced on the captured pages. 1 3 7
The Drafted Generalist
The module list names Processing Activities, Subprocessors, Systems and Risk Assessment with built-in storage for DPAs and audit reports, and the vendor says data is reused across GDPR, ISMS and ISO — more than a register in a folder. But we found no public information on DPIA workflows as such, legal-basis fields or how technical and organisational measures attach to activities, and the pricing page shows a company structure of one company, so the connected-record promise is asserted rather than shown. 1 3 7
The Lead Auditor
Processing activities, vendors, subprocessors and risk assessments are structured modules, the RoPA auto-generates, and data is reused across GDPR, ISMS and ISO — more than a folder of templates. But we found no public information on DPIA questionnaires, DPIA triggers derived from the record, TOM assignment or linked legal bases, so this sits between a basic register and a genuinely connected legal data model. 1 3 7
The IT Integrator
Processing Activities, Systems, Vendors and Subprocessors are separate modules with the data explicitly reused across GDPR, ISMS and ISO, and the RoPA auto-generates from those records — a connected core, not Word files in a tree. We found no public information on DPIA workflows, TOMs or legal-basis modeling, so beyond the record of processing and the processor register the legal artifacts stay unevidenced. 1 3 7
The Skeptic
Processing Activities, Systems, Vendors and Subprocessors modules, an auto-generated RoPA and data reused across GDPR, ISMS and ISO show a linked register rather than a Word file with version numbers in the filename. But DPIA is the phrase the captured pages never use — we found no public information on DPIA workflows, TOM modeling or legal-basis fields, which is what separates a structured register from a connected data model. 1 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
Data subject requests are named as managed objects alongside processing activities and an Incident Manager module exists, so there is more than an email inbox. I found no public information on statutory clocks, intake channels, identity checks, authority-report output or deletion execution, so the operational half is unevidenced beyond a log and a list. 1 7
The In-House Counsel
The GDPR module names data subject request handling in one place and an Incident Manager module exists, but I found no public information on statutory deadline tracking, breach severity assessment, authority-notification output or deletion execution. Without evidence that the breach workflow produces the Art. 33 notification, this is a named log rather than an operational process. 1 7
The Drafted Generalist
There is an Incident Manager module and the GDPR module claims to manage data subject requests 'all in one place', which beats an email inbox. Beyond those module names we found no public information on statutory deadline clocks, a 72-hour breach workflow, authority-report output or deletion tracking, so the operational half looks like lists rather than guided workflows I could hand to an authority. 1 7
The Lead Auditor
Data subject requests and privacy documentation sit alongside processing activities in one module, and an Incident Manager is in the module list. Beyond that, we found no public information on statutory clock tracking, the 72-hour notification workflow, authority-report output, or deletion rules with execution evidence — the operational evidence stops at a request capability and a breach list. 1 7
The IT Integrator
Data subject requests and privacy documentation are said to live in one place, and an Incident Manager sits in the module list, but the captured pages stop at module names plus due-date notifications. We found no public information on statutory deadline tracking, structured intake, breach severity assessment or deletion execution, which reads as a request log and a breach list with reminders. 1 7
The Skeptic
A module named Incident Manager and one phrase about managing data subject requests are all the evidence shows. We found no public information on statutory clocks, 72-hour breach handling, authority-report output, identity checks or deletion execution — the operational half of a DSMS is marketed as a name on a module list. 1 7
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
GDPR, ISO 27001 and NIS2 are explicitly covered with data reused across frameworks and the ability to implement any custom control set — the one-record-many-regimes idea is present. I found no public information on Swiss nDSG, UK GDPR, ePrivacy or AI Act duties, so the operationalized set is the Nordic trio rather than broad regime coverage. 1 3 4
The In-House Counsel
GDPR is operationalized with real data reuse into ISO 27001 and NIS2, custom frameworks can be implemented, and a service of in-house Nordic lawyers keeps the legal content alive. Beyond GDPR itself I found no public information on coverage of other privacy regimes — Swiss nDSG, UK GDPR or EU AI Act duties — so one privacy regime covers my footprint only if that footprint is EU-only. 1 3 4 7
The Drafted Generalist
GDPR, ISO 27001 and NIS2 run on one data basis with reuse claimed across them, and any custom framework can be implemented — a real step past per-regime checklists. As privacy regimes go, though, we found only GDPR; no public information on Swiss or UK variants, ePrivacy or AI Act duties, which matters if my firm's processing crosses a border. 1 3 4
The Lead Auditor
The evidenced shelf is GDPR plus the security regimes ISO 27001 and NIS2, with genuine cross-framework data reuse and the ability to implement custom control sets. As privacy regimes, the only one operationalized on the captured pages is GDPR; we found no public information on national variants like BDSG or the Swiss nDSG, UK GDPR, ePrivacy or AI Act duties, so there is little for the mapping machinery to map between. 1 3 4
The IT Integrator
GDPR, ISO 27001 and NIS2 run on one shared data basis — "the data is reused across GDPR, ISMS, ISO and many more" — and any custom framework or control set can be implemented, so a processing activity is not re-documented per regime. On privacy regimes specifically only GDPR is evidenced: we found no public information on Swiss nDSG, UK GDPR, ePrivacy or AI Act privacy duties, or per-country variants. 1 3 4
The Skeptic
GDPR, ISO 27001 and NIS2 demonstrably share one data basis with reuse, and any custom framework can be implemented — the cross-linking architecture is real, not a per-regime checklist. But beyond GDPR we found no public information on any privacy regime: no Swiss nDSG, no UK GDPR, no ePrivacy, no AI Act duties, no per-country variants and no stated update cadence. 1 3 4
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
RoPA and SoA documents generate on demand, historical vendor questionnaires are saved for comparison, and the vendor carries a yearly ISAE 3000-II assurance report itself. I found no public information on revision-safe change history, audit-scoped evidence packs, auditor access roles or a defensible state-on-date-X answer, so the full audit file still needs manual assembly. 1 4 5 8
The In-House Counsel
RoPA and SoA generate on demand with Excel export, historical vendor questionnaires are archived for comparison, and the vendor carries a yearly ISAE 3000-II assurance report on its own controls — real report generators with retained evidence. I found no public information on revision-safe change history, auditor access roles, or an answer to "show me the state on date X", which is the question an authority actually asks. 1 4 5 8
The Drafted Generalist
Auto-generated RoPA and SoA at a click, vendor questionnaires pre-populated, returned automatically and archived historically for comparison — that is report generation plus collected evidence, not screenshots. We found no public information on revision-safe change history or a 'state on date X' answer, and auditor access appears to be generic read-only, so a full audit file still needs human assembly. 1 4 8
The Lead Auditor
Reports for the core registers generate at a click — RoPA, and a SoA with a status at any given time — and vendor questionnaires are sent pre-filled from the system, returned automatically, and kept historically for comparison. Beyond that we found no public information on revision-safe change history, audit-scoped evidence packs, auditor access roles, or an answer to the state on a given date, which is what separates click-generated reports from a standing audit state. 1 4 8
The IT Integrator
The RoPA and SoA documents generate at a click with an Excel export, read-only access serves accounting and reporting, and vendor audits keep historical questionnaires saved for comparison on recurring schedules. We found no public information on revision-safe change history, on-demand evidence packs or a point-in-time reconstruction, so a full audit file still looks hand-assembled from generated documents. 1 4 8
The Skeptic
RoPA and SoA generation on demand, Excel export, vendor questionnaires retained for year-over-year comparison and read-only reporting access are genuine report machinery, and the vendor itself carries a yearly ISAE 3000-II assurance report. But the ISO certificates quoted on the security page are the cloud providers' own, and we found no public information on revision-safe change history, audit-scoped evidence packs or reconstructing the state of records at a past date. 1 4 5 8
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
Azure Active Directory user sync, SSO with user and group provisioning, Slack notifications, a public API and pre-populated audit questionnaires that return vendor answers automatically remove real recurring toil from the vendor-audit cycle. No public information on ticketing or HR connectors, webhooks or AI assistance, and API pricing sits on usage, so it stops short of infrastructure-grade. 2 3 4 8
The In-House Counsel
Azure Active Directory user synchronisation, Slack notifications, SSO with user and group provisioning, vendor-list upload and a public API priced on usage amount to directory import plus a handful of native connectors. I found no public information on webhooks, ticketing or HR connectors, or on workflow automation with escalation, so the recurring work is automated at the reminder level. 2 3 4 8
The Drafted Generalist
Live Azure Active Directory user synchronisation, Slack notifications, single sign-on with user and group provisioning, a public API, and recurring vendor audits with pre-populated questionnaires that flow back automatically — recurring toil genuinely reduced. We found no public information on webhooks, ticketing or HR connectors or AI assistance, and API pricing is usage-based, which I would want quantified before relying on it. 3 4 8
The Lead Auditor
Real feeding from the estate is evidenced: Azure Active Directory user synchronisation, Slack notifications, SSO with user and group provisioning, a public API with pre-built integrations, vendor list upload, and recurring vendor audits with due notifications. The automation shown is reminders and recurrence; we found no public information on ticketing or HR connectors, webhooks, or AI assistance with human review. 1 3 4 8
The IT Integrator
This is what I check first: the product page shows live user synchronisation from Azure Active Directory, confirms SSO with user and group provisioning, offers a Public API priced on usage, pushes Slack notifications, and sends vendor questionnaires out pre-populated with responses returning into the system automatically. We found no public information on webhooks, ticketing, HR or CMDB connectors, or how far the API reaches into the data model, so it stops short of estate-grade parity. 2 3 4 8
The Skeptic
A public API priced by usage, Azure Active Directory user sync, Slack notifications, SSO with user and group provisioning, vendor list upload and pre-populated questionnaires that return automatically make the recurring vendor audit loop real automation rather than renamed toil. We found no public information on webhooks, ticketing or HR connectors or AI assistance, and the claim to cut audit time by half arrives with no measurement behind it. 2 3 4 8
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
All data sits in named EU data centers in Frankfurt and Paris, hosting is EU-only by default, the subprocessor list is published with yearly reviews, and a DPA is on offer. The captured pages give an EU-only subprocessor statement alongside US-headquartered hosting providers with no EU contracting entity named, and the vendor's own jurisdiction is only implied by the Danish supervisory authority reference. 5 6
The In-House Counsel
Hosting is exclusively EU with named data centers in Frankfurt and Paris, the subprocessor list is published, a DPA is offered and the TOMs are detailed on the security page, backed by the vendor's own ISAE 3000-II and Cyber Essentials Plus. However, the storage layer is named as AWS and MongoDB Atlas — US-headquartered parents — with no EU contracting entity stated on the page, and the captured pages do not state the vendor's jurisdiction of incorporation, leaving CLOUD Act reach through the critical processors unresolved. 5 6
The Drafted Generalist
All data sits in named EU data centers in Frankfurt and Paris, a DPA and a complete subprocessor list are published, and the privacy policy names the Danish Data Protection Authority as the complaint venue. The hosts are US-headquartered AWS and MongoDB Atlas with no EU contracting entity of the US parents stated on the page, so the chain is EU-hosted but not jurisdictionally clean end to end. 5 6
The Lead Auditor
Hosting is EU-only in named data centers in Frankfurt and Paris, a DPA is offered, and a subprocessor list is published with yearly reviews — EU hosting is the default, not an option. However, the named processors are AWS and MongoDB Atlas, both US-headquartered providers, and the page states no EU contracting entity of the US parents; we also found no public confirmation of the vendor's jurisdiction beyond the Danish company name and supervisory authority reference, which leaves critical processing within non-European jurisdictional reach. 5 6
The IT Integrator
Hosting is exclusively in Frankfurt and Paris, a DPA and a complete subprocessor list are published, and the vendor itself carries a yearly ISAE 3000-II assurance report. The same page states subprocessors are inside the EU/EEA while the named hosting providers are AWS and MongoDB Atlas with no EU contracting entity of the US parents stated, and we found no public information on ownership, so the chain is EU-default but not jurisdictionally clean end to end. 5 6
The Skeptic
Hosting is EU/EEA-only with named data centers in Frankfurt and Paris, the subprocessor list is published with yearly reviews, a DPA is offered and the Danish Data Protection Authority is the named complaint route. But storage sits with AWS and MongoDB Atlas — US-headquartered parents, with no EU contracting entity of those parents stated on the captured page — and we found no public information confirming ownership or the entity's jurisdiction beyond the ApS name and the Danish authority route, so the compliance record remains within non-European jurisdictional reach. 5 6
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
Both paid editions say Talk to us and every add-on is priced by dependency — API on usage, assessments on count, integrations on setup — so a buyer can compute nothing from public pages and every client workspace becomes its own negotiation. The only public figure is that trying the product is free. 2 5
The In-House Counsel
Both published plans read "Talk to us", and every add-on is a variable — "Price depends on number of assessments", "Price depends on actual API usage", "Price depends on setup" — so the real invoice is not computable from public pages. The only public figures are structural: a free account, one company, and policy audiences of up to 200 users. 2 5
The Drafted Generalist
The pricing page names Pro and Enterprise plans and both say 'Talk to us' — no number anywhere, with add-ons for assessments, KLE Online and API usage each 'depending' on something unstated. A free account in two minutes is welcome, but I cannot compute even a ballpark annual invoice for my 80-person firm without a sales call. 2 5
The Lead Auditor
Both the Pro and Enterprise editions say 'Talk to us', and the add-ons name their pricing drivers without any numbers — 'Price depends on number of assessments', 'Price depends on actual API usage', 'Price depends on setup'. Apart from a free trial and a two-minute free account, we found no public figures that would let a buyer compute a real invoice for any configuration. 2
The IT Integrator
Past a free trial, the pricing page shows "Talk to us" for both Pro and Enterprise, with no figure stated anywhere. The only pricing signals are qualitative — price depends on number of assessments, on actual API usage, or on setup — so the real invoice remains a sales conversation from the first module. 2
The Skeptic
Every plan says "Talk to us", and the only pricing statements anywhere are dependencies — "Price depends on actual API usage", "Price depends on setup", "Price depends on number of assessments" — so no real invoice is computable from public pages. The homepage says "No consultants needed to set-up" while another page advertises in-house Nordic lawyers providing ongoing advice, a service we found no public price for, offered under the brand name "Cerivo" rather than the vendor's own. 1 2 7
European sovereignty — proven facts
2 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 ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | EU only | 3/3 pts | 5 Report an error |
| Subprocessors | US CLOUD Act reach ⚠ unverified | 0/2 pts | 5 Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 16 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. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- Weak sourcing — Subprocessors. The same page asserts 'We only work with sub processors inside the EU/EEA' with hosting exclusively in Frankfurt and Paris, but the named processors are US-headquartered providers and no EU contracting entity of the US parents is stated on the page.
- 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.
- 30 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
- 8 data facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 3 pricing facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 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
- 1 compliance 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 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 support 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
Sources (8)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.wiredrelations.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Vendor pricing page wiredrelations.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy/GDPR product page wiredrelations.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 ISMS product page wiredrelations.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Security/trust page wiredrelations.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 6 Privacy policy wiredrelations.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 7 Privacy regime coverage — found from sitemap www.wiredrelations.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap www.wiredrelations.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →