Document Management (DMS)
agorum core
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by agorum Software GmbH · www.agorum.com
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.
agorum core at a glance
- Vendor
- agorum Software GmbH
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates agorum core 2.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. agorum core is an open-source-based document management system from agorum Software GmbH in Ostfildern, Germany, offered on premises or in agorum Cloud. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
agorum core is an open-source-based document management system from agorum Software GmbH in Ostfildern, Germany, offered on premises or in agorum Cloud. The bench's scoring is highest on document workflows, where scores run from 6 to 8: judges credited a workflow editor with versioned, testable definitions and a DATEV XML online handover documented down to ledger types, while docking points for SAP, Odoo and e-signature appearing only as named modules. Versioning and permissions hold at 6, and audit-proof archiving at 5, where immutability is described concretely but we found no public information on an auditor's report or a tax-audit export. The recurring weaknesses are pricing transparency, sitting at 2 with no public euro figure, and search and portability at 4, since the only documented export moves data between agorum core systems. Sovereignty spans 1 to 3 — some judges value the on-premises and open-source route, while others weigh unconfirmed cloud residency and subprocessors more heavily.
Speaks for it
- Workflow definitions are versioned with old versions kept runnable, plus subworkflows, testing before deployment and log inspection.
- The DATEV XML online handover is documented down to ledger types and the ZIP contents for the interface.
- Documents marked revisionssicher can neither be changed, deleted nor moved for the set period, and the original version stays permanently protected.
- Automatic versioning with restore sits alongside a gapless audit trail of creates, changes and deletions with timestamp and user.
- On-premises deployment is available alongside agorum Cloud, with an open-source product developed in Germany.
Held against it
- We found no public euro figure for any edition, module or licence, with module prices stated to be heavily project- and volume-dependent.
- The only documented export path moves data from one agorum core system into another, and we found no public information on open-format export of documents with metadata, versions and audit trail.
- We found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, on where the cloud edition stores documents and metadata, or on a subprocessor list.
- The audit trail logs creates, changes and deletions, and we found no public information on reads or exports being logged.
- AI processing runs through attachable OpenAI, Azure OpenAI or Mistral models with no stated processing location, and the OCR tool requires a customer-supplied Mistral API key.
Best for
- You need a GoBD-oriented archive in which documents marked revisionssicher are locked against change, deletion and moving for a chosen number of years, supported by a sample procedure documentation bounded at two to six consulting days.
- Your accounting runs through DATEV and you want the XML online handover with mapped ledger types.
- You want to run on premises and license, set up and operate the system with your own IT team, paying licence costs and maintenance.
- You build multi-step processes and want a workflow editor you can test before deploying to production, with old versions kept runnable.
Avoid if
- You must compute your total cost from public prices before talking to the vendor; the captured pages show no euro figure and state module prices to be heavily project- and volume-dependent.
- You need a documented exit to a successor system in open formats; the migration tool moves data between agorum core systems and its stated use case is building a test system.
- Your procurement requires confirmed cloud data residency and a named subprocessor list before signature; the captured privacy policy covers website and applicant data.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Capture, OCR & indexing | 3 of 5 |
| Versioning, permissions & audit trail | 3 of 5 |
| Audit-proof archiving & retention | 2.5 of 5 |
| Document workflows & integrations | 3.5 of 5 |
| Search, retrieval & exit | 2 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 1 of 5 |
Capture, OCR & indexing
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How documents get in and become findable: scanning and email intake, OCR, classification and metadata extraction, and whether incoming e-invoices (XRechnung, ZUGFeRD) are read as structured data rather than as pictures.
0 — Manual upload only; no OCR, no metadata beyond file name and folder.
3 — Upload, drag-and-drop and scan import with OCR mentioned, but indexing is manual and no word on email intake or e-invoice formats.
5 — Scanner, email and folder intake, full-text OCR, document types with metadata fields, and automatic extraction of common fields (date, sender, amount) documented.
8 — AI- or rule-based classification and field extraction with confidence and a validation step, XRechnung and ZUGFeRD read as structured data, mailbox and Microsoft 365 intake, and duplicate detection documented.
10 — Capture is engineered and shown: classification and extraction trainable per document type, validation queues, e-invoice validation against the standard, intake channels listed with their limits, and where AI processing runs (location, model provider) stated.
The GoBD Auditor
Scanner and email land in a central inbox, server-side OCR produces searchable PDFs and reads barcodes, and the tagging module files documents into the archive; the Mistral tool extracts invoice data, tables and layout elements as structured output. We found no public information on classification with confidence values and a validation step, on XRechnung and ZUGFeRD being read as structured data beyond one module name, or on duplicate detection of documents. 2 5 6 9 10
The Records Manager
Scanner intake into a central inbox, collection of incoming emails with tax-relevant content, hot folders and a server-side OCR engine that produces searchable PDFs and reads barcodes give me capture I can trust, and an AI tool extracts invoice data and tables through the Mistral OCR API. The control layer is thin: we found no public information on a validation step or confidence values for extraction, on XRechnung and ZUGFeRD being read as structured data (an e-invoice module is listed but not described), or on duplicate detection. 2 5 6 10
The IT Integrator
Scanner and e-mail intake into a central inbox, a server-side OCR engine with barcode recognition, tunable recognition and searchable PDFs, plus a Mistral-based tool documented down to its parameters for extracting structured content such as invoice data. We found no public information on classification with a validation queue, duplicate detection, or whether XRechnung and ZUGFeRD are read as structured data; an E-Rechnung module is only named without scope. 5 6 9 10 2
The Mittelstand Owner
Scanner straight into a central inbox plus incoming email collection and server-side OCR producing searchable PDFs are documented, and the Mistral OCR tool is described as extracting structured invoice data page by page. But we found no public information on automatic classification with a validation step, on XRechnung or ZUGFeRD being read as structured data rather than pictures, or on duplicate detection — for e-invoices I have a module name and nothing more. 2 5 6 9 10
The Data Protection Officer
Scanner and email intake into a central inbox, server-side OCR with language packs, barcode types and searchable-PDF output, plus a keywording-and-filing module, are documented, and the Mistral OCR tool is described for digitising scans and extracting structured invoice data. We found no public information on classification with confidence values and a validation step, on XRechnung and ZUGFeRD being read as structured data, or on Microsoft 365 intake. The OCR route runs through Mistral's API under a customer-supplied key, and where that processing happens is not stated. 5 6 10 9
The Skeptic
Scanner, email and hot-folder intake into a central inbox, server-side OCR with full-text indexing, and a tagging-and-filing module are properly documented, and the Mistral OCR tool is documented as extracting structured information such as invoice data with its model provider named. But we found no public information on XRechnung or ZUGFeRD being read as structured data, on classification with a confidence value and a validation step, or on duplicate detection at intake — the e-invoice appears only as a module name with no description. 5 6 8 9 10
Versioning, permissions & audit trail
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Who may see and change which document, what happened to it, and whether earlier states can be recovered: version history, check-in and check-out, role- and attribute-based rights, and an audit trail of reads and changes.
0 — Files overwrite each other; rights only at folder level or not described; no log of who did what.
3 — Version history and folder permissions exist, but no check-out, no record-level rights and no documented audit log.
5 — Version history with restore, check-in and check-out, roles and groups with document-type or record-level rights, and an audit log of changes documented.
8 — Metadata-driven permissions (by department, client or confidentiality), audit trail covering reads, exports and deletions, single sign-on and directory sync (Entra ID, LDAP) documented, and administrators' own actions logged.
10 — Access is provable: the audit trail is tamper-evident and exportable, permission changes are themselves versioned, field-level rights and need-to-know access for HR or legal records documented, and the log retention period stated.
The GoBD Auditor
Automatic versioning with restore, locking over the whole edit session and a check-in comment are documented, the audit trail records every create, change and delete with user and timestamp, and rights are set via ACLs and permission-bearing folder templates with two-factor and single sign-on. The trail covers changes only: we found no public information on logging of reads, exports or administrators' own actions, on directory synchronisation, or on log retention. 2 7 8 11
The Records Manager
Automatic versioning on content, metadata and file-name change with restore, check-in comments and a permanently protected original is close to what I demand, and the audit trail logs every create, change and delete with user and timestamp and is described as tamper-proof archiving of changes. For the higher bar we found no public information on logging reads and exports, directory sync with Entra ID or LDAP, field-level rights, or the audit log's retention period; single sign-on and two-factor are documented. 2 7 8 11
The IT Integrator
Versioning is unusually deep in the documentation: automatic versions on content, metadata and name changes, restore, FIFO rotation, a permanently protected original and check-in comments, plus a gapless audit trail of creates, changes and deletions with user and timestamp, single sign-on and two-factor. I found no public information on record-level rights, directory sync with Entra ID or LDAP, whether reads and exports are logged, or whether the trail itself is tamper-evident. 7 8 2
The Mittelstand Owner
Automatic versioning on any content or metadata change with restore, locking during editing and check-in comments are documented, alongside a gapless audit trail of create, change and delete with user and timestamp plus single sign-on and two-factor. We found no public information on directory sync with Entra ID or LDAP, on reads and exports being logged, or on the trail being tamper-evident or exportable. 2 7 8 11
The Data Protection Officer
Automatic versioning with restore, check-in comments, one version per locked edit session and a checkout module, a documented audit trail of every create, change and delete with user and timestamp, and two-factor and single sign-on give me a defensible who-did-what record for personnel files. The captured pages describe permissions only as folder and workflow ACLs, and I found no public information on logging of reads, exports or administrators' own actions, on directory sync with Entra ID or LDAP, or on field-level and need-to-know rights for HR or legal records. 7 8 2 11
The Skeptic
The versioning side is real and unusually detailed: automatic versioning with restore, edit locking producing one version per session, a permanently protected original, and change logging with timestamp and user. What we found no public information on is read and export events in the audit trail, directory sync or a described role model, and tamper-evidence or exportability of the log — and the captured pages describe the audit trail as gapless while also documenting configurable exclusions from historization. 2 7 8 11
Audit-proof archiving & retention
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
GoBD-compliant, revisionssicher archiving: immutability of archived documents, retention schedules and deletion, tax-audit data access, and the independent evidence behind the claim — scored on what is certified and documented, not on the word "GoBD-konform".
0 — No statement on archiving, retention or GoBD.
3 — "GoBD-konform" or "revisionssicher" claimed with no certificate, no description of how immutability is achieved and no retention settings documented.
5 — Archived documents documented as unchangeable, retention periods configurable per document type, deletion after expiry, and a sample Verfahrensdokumentation or GoBD guidance offered.
8 — An auditor's report (IDW PS 880 or comparable) published or named with its scope and date, WORM or equivalent storage described, legal hold, GDPR deletion reconciled with retention duties, and Z1–Z3 tax-audit export documented.
10 — Archiving is evidenced end to end: current Testat with scope covering the cloud and on-premises editions as sold, retention and deletion logged and reportable, long-term formats (PDF/A) enforced, and a documented procedure for the tax audit and for moving the archive without breaking its integrity.
The GoBD Auditor
Documents marked revisionssicher are locked against change, deletion and moving for any chosen number of years, the original version stays permanently protected regardless of versioning settings, and a sample Verfahrensdokumentation is offered for the pro version, with guidance that a cloud installation needs one too. What I miss is the independent evidence: we found no public information on an auditor's report such as IDW PS 880 with scope and date, on WORM storage, legal hold, deletion after expiry, or a Z1–Z3 export the tax office can read. 7 9 10
The Records Manager
Documents marked revisionssicher can be locked against change, deletion and removal for any chosen number of years, the original version is permanently protected, and a sample Verfahrensdokumentation plus GoBD guidance is offered — the middle ground is earned. The claim stands on the vendor's word alone: we found no public information on an auditor's report such as IDW PS 880, WORM storage, Z1–Z3 tax-audit export, or deletion after retention expires. 7 9 10
The IT Integrator
Immutability is described concretely: documents marked revisionssicher can neither be changed, deleted nor moved for the configured time, retention is any number of years, and a sample Verfahrensdokumentation is offered with the effort bounded at two to six consulting days and a do-it-yourself path. We found no public information on an auditor's report, WORM storage, deletion after retention expires, or a Z1–Z3 tax-audit export. 9 10 7
The Mittelstand Owner
The basic archive is described with revisionssicher marking that blocks changing, deleting and moving documents for a chosen number of years, a permanently protected original version, and a sample Verfahrensdokumentation offered with the effort bounded at two to six consulting days. We found no public information on an auditor's report, WORM storage, legal hold or a Z1–Z3 tax-audit export. 7 9 10
The Data Protection Officer
Documents marked audit-proof are documented as unchangeable, undeletable and immovable for a chosen number of years, the original version is permanently protected, and a sample Verfahrensdokumentation is offered with the project effort put at two to six consulting days. We found no public information on an auditor's report such as IDW PS 880, on logged deletion after retention expiry, on legal hold, on Z1–Z3 tax-audit export, or on how GDPR deletion is reconciled with retention duties for archived material. 9 10 7
The Skeptic
Here the immutability mechanism is actually described rather than merely claimed: documents marked revisionssicher can neither be changed, deleted nor moved for the set period, the original version is permanently protected, retention is any number of years, and a sample Verfahrensdokumentation is offered to pro users. But we found no public information on an auditor's report or Testat, on deletion after retention expires, on legal hold, or on tax-audit data export — so the archiving claim rests on the vendor's own description alone. 7 9 10
Document workflows & integrations
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What happens to a document after it arrives: approval and invoice workflows, tasks and deadlines, and the connectors that tie the DMS to ERP, accounting, DATEV, Microsoft 365 and the rest of the stack.
0 — No workflows; documents are stored and nothing else.
3 — A fixed approval or sharing step and a handful of named integrations, with no workflow designer and no API documentation.
5 — A workflow designer for approvals and invoice processing, tasks with deadlines and substitutes, Microsoft 365 or Outlook integration, and a documented REST API.
8 — Graphical workflow modelling without code, invoice workflow with ERP or DATEV handover documented, connectors for named ERP systems (SAP, Microsoft Dynamics, DATEV) with their scope, webhooks or events, and e-signature integration.
10 — Workflows are a platform: versioned workflow definitions, process reporting with throughput times, a public API reference with rate limits and a sandbox, a partner marketplace of integrations with stated maintainers, and workflow history kept in the audit trail.
The GoBD Auditor
The workflow editor with versioned definitions, subworkflows, testing and deployment is documented in depth, approval, task and checkout modules are listed, and the DATEV XML online handover for incoming, outgoing and cash ledgers is described alongside named SAP and Odoo connectors plus the inSign signature integration. We found no public information on webhooks or event triggers beyond content and hot folders, on a public API reference with rate limits and a sandbox, or on process reporting with throughput times. 2 8 11 12
The Records Manager
The workflow editor with versioned definitions that stay runnable, subworkflows, testing and deployment, plus a documented DATEV XML online handover with ledger mapping and separate task and approval modules, is close to platform grade. SAP, Odoo and the inSign e-signature appear as named modules without documented scope, and we found no public information on process reporting with throughput times, an API reference with rate limits, or a maintained integration marketplace. 2 8 11 12
The IT Integrator
The workflow editor is the real thing with versioned definitions, subworkflows, testing and deployment, and the DATEV handover is documented down to the workflow node building the ZIP for the DATEV XML online interface; SAP, Odoo and an e-signature module are named, and the AI model is switchable at any time. The ERP connectors beyond DATEV come without stated scope, and I found no public information on a documented REST API with webhooks or on Microsoft 365 integration. 11 12 2 8
The Mittelstand Owner
The workflow editor is documented in real depth — versioned definitions, subworkflows, deployment, process overview, admin sight of every running step — and the DATEV XML online handover with invoices, XMLs and ledger selection is spelled out, with SAP and Odoo connector modules named. We found no public information on those connectors' scope, on tasks with deadlines and substitutes, on Microsoft 365 or Outlook integration, or on e-signature beyond a module name. 2 8 11 12
The Data Protection Officer
The workflow editor is documented in operational depth — versioned definitions where the old version stays runnable, subworkflows, testing, deployment, process overview and log inspection — alongside task, approval and checkout modules, DATEV invoice handover with mapped ledger types, named SAP and Odoo connectors, e-signature via inSign, and folder structures invokable per API. The captured pages give no public information on process reporting with throughput times, on an API reference with rate limits and a sandbox, or on the scope of the ERP connectors. 11 2 12 8
The Skeptic
The workflow editor is documented in genuine depth — versioned definitions with old versions kept runnable, subworkflows, test-then-deploy, process overview and log inspection — and the DATEV XML online handover is documented down to ledger types and ZIP contents, which is more scope than most vendors publish. SAP and Odoo appear only as interface module names with no stated scope, e-signature likewise only as a module name, and we found no public information on a documented REST API reference, webhooks, or Microsoft 365 integration. 2 8 11 12
Search, retrieval & exit
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Finding documents again and taking them with you: full-text and metadata search, saved searches and mobile access, and whether documents, metadata, versions and audit trail can be exported in documented formats when the contract ends.
0 — Folder browsing only; no export beyond downloading single files.
3 — Full-text search exists, but no metadata filters, and bulk export is undocumented or only on request.
5 — Full-text and metadata search with filters and saved searches, mobile or web access, and bulk export of documents with their metadata (for example CSV or XML) documented.
8 — Search across versions and attachments with permissions respected, export of documents in original format with metadata, versions and audit trail in a documented structure, and an import path from other DMS or file shares named.
10 — The exit is designed in: a documented complete export with schema, export available self-service at any time, the post-termination retrieval window and data deletion stated, and archives stored in open formats so a successor system can take them over intact.
The GoBD Auditor
Full-text, metadata and tag search on Solr is documented down to the search syntax and index rebuild, and a migration plugin exports data out of an agorum core system and re-imports it, though its stated use case is a smaller test system. We found no public information on saved searches or mobile access, on export of versions and audit trail in documented formats, or on a documented path for a successor system; the export evidenced here moves data between agorum systems. 13 14
The Records Manager
Full-text, metadata and tag search on a documented Solr engine, with configurable settings, search syntax and index rebuild, plus an AI assistant that answers within the rights context, covers retrieval well. The exit is the weak point: the migration export plugin moves data between agorum core systems, and we found no public information on a bulk export to open formats that keeps metadata, versions and audit trail together, on saved searches, or on the post-termination retrieval window. 1 13 14
The IT Integrator
Search is well covered: full text, metadata and tags over Solr with its own query syntax, available in both the open and pro editions. The exit story is thinner — the migration export is a plugin I could run myself without the vendor's services team, but it moves data from one agorum core system to another, and we found no public information on export formats and schemas, saved searches, or an import path from another DMS or file share. 14 13
The Mittelstand Owner
Full-text, metadata and tag search on Solr with its own syntax and a rebuildable, configurable index is well documented. The only export path shown is the migration plugin from one agorum core system into another, and we found no public information on bulk export with metadata in documented formats, on saved searches and mobile access, or on the post-termination retrieval window — the exit to a successor system is essentially undocumented. 13 14
The Data Protection Officer
Full-text, metadata and tag search on Solr with its own query syntax is documented, and a migration export plugin is described for moving data from one agorum core system into another. That export's formats and scope — whether metadata, versions and the audit trail travel with the documents — are not documented, and I found no public information on saved searches, mobile access, an import path from other DMS or file shares, or export formats a successor system could take over intact. 14 13
The Skeptic
Full-text, metadata and tag search on Solr with its own query syntax is documented, but we found no public information on saved searches or mobile access. The only export path we could find is the migration tool that moves data from one agorum core system into another — its stated use case is building a test system — with no documented open-format export of documents with metadata, versions and audit trail, and no word on a post-termination retrieval window or successor-system takeover. 13 14
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Who the contracting entity and its owner are, where documents and their metadata are stored and processed in the cloud edition, and who the subprocessors are — including any AI provider that reads document content. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline.
0 — Non-EU contracting entity, no statement on where documents are stored, and subprocessors unnamed.
3 — An EU entity contracts, but the cloud edition runs on a non-EU-controlled hyperscaler without a stated safeguard, or the subprocessor list is absent.
5 — EU contracting entity and EU data centres stated for the cloud edition, with a DPA, but significant parts of the chain (hosting, AI processing, support) are non-EU-controlled without a stated safeguard.
8 — EU entity, documents and metadata stored in named EU data centres, subprocessor list with locations published, AI processing location disclosed, an on-premises or private-cloud option offered, and certifications (ISO 27001, BSI C5) published.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: European ownership, EU entity, every processing location and subprocessor European, customer-controlled keys or on-premises operation available, and certifications with their scope published.
The GoBD Auditor
The pages state open source, developed in Germany, and an on-premises deployment option, while the AI layer lets customers attach OpenAI or Azure OpenAI models and one OCR tool requires a Mistral API key. Neither the contracting entity's jurisdiction on the vendor's own captured pages nor data residency nor a single subprocessor could be confirmed, and we found no public information on where the cloud edition stores or processes documents, or on certifications. 1 2 6 8
The Records Manager
The vendor presents itself as developed in Germany, open-source and available on-premises, which is a good start. The rest of the chain is dark in the captured pages: we found no public information confirming the contracting entity, on where the cloud edition stores documents and metadata, on subprocessors and their locations, on certifications, or on where the connectable OpenAI, Azure OpenAI and Mistral processing runs. 1 2 6 8
The IT Integrator
The vendor presents itself as German and open source with an on-premises option and bring-your-own AI models, but the captured pages leave the essentials unconfirmed: I found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction as evidenced on the vendor's own pages, on where the cloud edition stores documents and metadata, or on a subprocessor list. The OCR tool processes content through Mistral under a customer API key with no stated processing location. 1 2 6 8
The Mittelstand Owner
Open source developed in Germany and an on-premises or fully self-operated deployment are stated, but we found no public information on where the cloud edition stores documents and metadata, on the subprocessor list, or on where AI processing runs beyond connectable OpenAI, Azure OpenAI and Mistral models. The captured pages also do not confirm the contracting entity, so the cloud chain stays dark. 1 2 6 8
The Data Protection Officer
On-premises operation and an open-source product developed in Germany give buyers a way around the cloud question, but the captured pages make no statement on where agorum Cloud stores documents and their metadata, name no subprocessors, and publish no certifications or data-processing agreement. Meanwhile document content demonstrably reaches third-party AI: OCR runs through Mistral's API under a customer key, and ALBERT can be attached to OpenAI or Azure OpenAI models, with no processing location stated for any of it. 1 2 6 8
The Skeptic
We found no public information confirming the contracting entity's jurisdiction, the ownership, where the cloud edition stores documents and metadata, or any subprocessor list — the captured privacy policy covers website and applicant data, not the product's processing chain. An on-premises deployment option and a developed-in-Germany statement are the only signals, and the AI story depends on attachable models from OpenAI, Azure OpenAI or Mistral with the processing location unstated. 1 2 3 6 8
Pricing transparency
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the cost of a given number of users, storage and modules — including cloud versus on-premises licensing, maintenance, implementation partner fees and price increases — from public pages alone.
0 — No public prices at all; every quote comes from sales or a partner.
3 — A "from" price or a single edition priced, but modules, storage, maintenance and partner implementation are unstated — the real cost is unknowable.
5 — Editions priced per user or per month, but at least one commonly needed cost (storage, archiving or workflow module, maintenance percentage, onboarding) is missing or "on request".
8 — Every edition and module priced publicly, storage limits and overage stated, on-premises licence and maintenance terms given, and contract term and notice period published.
10 — Complete cost computability: a configurator or price list covering users, modules, storage and deployment model, partner implementation priced or bounded, and price-increase terms on a public page.
The GoBD Auditor
The pricing page names licence types and billing dimensions — fixed or concurrent users, monthly token volume for the AI suite, volume and traffic for the cloud, module prices described as strongly project- and volume-dependent — and the included cloud services are listed, but we found no public euro figure for any edition, module, storage tier or maintenance, and no contract term or notice period. A buyer cannot compute a single total from these pages; the only bounded figure is the two to six consulting days stated for the procedure documentation. 2 4 10
The Records Manager
The pricing page describes the billing logic — cloud by volume and traffic with maintenance, backup and 50 GB included, ALBERT with "abgerechnet wird nur das Token-Volumen pro Monat", and "Modulpreise sind stark projekt- und volumenabhängig" — but the captures show no euro figure for any edition, module or user licence, so no scenario is computable. The only bounded cost I found is the "2 bis 6 Beratungstage" for creating the Verfahrensdokumentation. 2 4 10
The IT Integrator
The pricing page explains the model — named or concurrent user licences, cloud billed by volume and traffic with maintenance, backup and 50 GB included, AI billed on token volume with non-expiring credits, licences not version-bound — but I found no figure for any of it, and module prices are stated to be heavily project- and volume-dependent. I cannot compute a deployment's cost from what is published; implementation appears only as two to six consulting days for the Verfahrensdokumentation, without a rate. 2 10 4
The Mittelstand Owner
The pricing page explains what the cloud includes, billing by volume and traffic, the license types and token-based AI billing, but we found no public price figures anywhere — module prices are stated as heavily project- and volume-dependent and the reader module's price follows volume. I cannot compute what forty users, storage and the approval module will cost before the partner visit; only the procedure-documentation effort is bounded at two to six consulting days. 2 10
The Data Protection Officer
The pricing page names its billing dimensions — fixed or concurrent users, volume and traffic, monthly ALBERT token volume, a reader module with monthly quotas from 100 documents — and states that cloud maintenance, backup and 50 GB volume are included, but no euro figure appears in the captured pages and module prices are described as heavily project- and volume-dependent. A buyer cannot compute a given setup's cost from public pages, and we found no public information on storage overage prices, on-premises maintenance terms, or contract term and notice period. 2 4 10
The Skeptic
The pricing page discloses billing models and inclusions — cloud billed by volume and traffic including maintenance, backup, 50 GB volume and an SSL certificate, fixed or concurrent user licences, ALBERT billed by monthly token volume rather than per user — but we found no public price figure for any edition, module or maintenance, with module prices stated to be heavily project- and volume-dependent. A buyer can learn how they will be billed but cannot compute a single euro of it from these pages. 2 4
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 ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about agorum core
Is agorum core European?
Yes. whats-best.ai classifies agorum core as EU-Made.
Where does agorum core store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does agorum core have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to agorum core?
As of 15 Oct 2026, the panel rates AMAGNO (3/5), Doxis (3/5) and EASY Archive (2.5/5) highest among the other 14 Document Management (DMS) 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 AMAGNO (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: agorum core alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 13 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 — Subprocessors, Legal entity. 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.
- 15 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
- 14 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
- 9 subprocessors 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
- 4 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
- 3 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
- 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 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 pricing 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
- 2 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are 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
Sources (14)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.agorum.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page www.agorum.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.agorum.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Legal notice www.agorum.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Capture, OCR & indexing — found from sitemap www.agorum.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Capture, OCR & indexing — found from sitemap www.agorum.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Versioning, permissions & audit trail — found from sitemap www.agorum.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Versioning, permissions & audit trail — found from sitemap www.agorum.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Audit-proof archiving & retention — found from sitemap www.agorum.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Audit-proof archiving & retention — found from sitemap www.agorum.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Document workflows & integrations — found from sitemap www.agorum.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Document workflows & integrations — found from sitemap www.agorum.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Search, retrieval & exit — found from sitemap www.agorum.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 Search, retrieval & exit — found from sitemap www.agorum.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →