Document Management (DMS)
AMAGNO
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Amagno GmbH · amagno.de
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.
AMAGNO at a glance
- Vendor
- Amagno GmbH
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Default not stated; pages mention Germany source, captured 13 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates AMAGNO 3/5, the mean of 6 judges. 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.
No written verdict for this product
The panel scored AMAGNO, but the summary our synthesizer wrote did not survive our own contradiction check — twice. Rather than print a paragraph we cannot stand behind, we print none. Every score, rationale and source below is unaffected; read them and draw the conclusion yourself.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Capture, OCR & indexing | 3.5 of 5 |
| Versioning, permissions & audit trail | 2 of 5 |
| Audit-proof archiving & retention | 2 of 5 |
| Document workflows & integrations | 3.5 of 5 |
| Search, retrieval & exit | 4 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 2 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
Trainable document types and data recognition, OCR with classification, and ZUGFeRD and XRechnung imported with all data available at once — that is the intake core I want to see, with email and FTP channels and a scanning partner for paper mail besides. I found no public information on a validation queue, duplicate detection, or where any AI-based recognition of content actually runs, so it stops short of the top band. 1 2 5 6
The Records Manager
Intake is broad and documented: physical post via the Dropscan scan service, manual and automatic email import via IMAP, printer driver and network-drive import, with OCR and classification feeding full-text search. Document types and data recognition are trainable, values are captured from the preview and automatically filed with the document, and ZUGFeRD and XRechnung arrive with all their data immediately available. We found no public information on duplicate detection, Microsoft 365 intake, extraction confidence with a validation step, or where AI processing runs. 1 2 5 6 12
The IT Integrator
Intake is genuinely documented: scanner guidance with daily scan volumes, a mailroom digitization partner with 24-hour turnaround, IMAP/FTP and invoice-mailbox intake, OCR with classification, and ZUGFeRD and XRechnung stated to arrive with all data immediately available as structured content. Trainable document types and recognition, click-to-capture value extraction with automatic reconciliation, and extraction of embedded attachments add real capture engineering. I stop short of the top because we found no public information on duplicate detection, validation queues with confidence values, or where any AI processing of document content runs. 1 5 6 12
The Mittelstand Owner
ZUGFeRD and XRechnung land with all data immediately usable and the XRechnung XML is shown as an interpreted preview at no extra cost; intake runs by email account, FTP or a Dropscan scan service that opens and scans letters within about 24 hours, and document types and data recognition can be trained. We found no public information on duplicate detection, a validation step with confidence values, or where the recognition processing runs. 1 5 6 12
The Data Protection Officer
Intake is well evidenced: trainable document-type classification and data recognition, OCR with classification and full-text search, automatic value extraction with click-to-capture, and ZUGFeRD and XRechnung imported with all data immediately available, arriving via email, FTP, printer driver or the Dropscan mail service. What I miss is where recognition runs and which provider's model reads my personnel files and health certificates — I found no public information on the AI processing location — and no documented validation queues, confidence values or duplicate detection. 1 5 6 12
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
Version history with restore, check-out that locks the document for others, and version number, author and date recorded per version are documented. I found no public information on an audit log of reads, exports or deletions, on single sign-on or directory sync, or on how finely rights can be set beyond a named rights management — and the settings allow versioning to be switched off entirely, which an auditor will ask about. 2 7 8 11
The Records Manager
Versioning is well evidenced — per-document history with version number, changes, author and date, restore of old versions, check-out that locks the document for others with notification on release, configurable scope and depth, plus comparison and merge. Beyond a rights-management item in the trial scope and a statement that only authorised users may access documents, we found no public information on roles, record-level or metadata-driven permissions, single sign-on, or an audit log of reads, exports and deletions. 2 7 8 11
The IT Integrator
Version handling is well documented — per-document history with version number, changes, author and date, restore, comparison without opening the file, and check-out that locks the document for others with notification on release. Beyond a generic rights-management mention in the trial scope, we found no public information on role- or metadata-driven permissions, single sign-on or directory sync. We found no public information on an audit log of reads and changes either, which keeps this well down the scale. 2 7 8
The Mittelstand Owner
Version history with author, date and recorded changes, restore of old versions, check-out that locks the file for colleagues, and version comparison without opening the document are documented down to the settings page. Rights management appears only as a word in a trial feature list, and we found no public information on role- or document-level permissions or any audit log of who changed or viewed what. 2 7 8 13
The Data Protection Officer
Versioning is genuinely documented: per-document history with author and date, restore, check-out that locks the document for others, version comparison and merge. Beyond that I found no public information on an audit log of reads, exports or deletions, on record-level or attribute-based rights beyond generic rights-management wording, or on single sign-on and directory sync. 2 7 8 11
The Skeptic
Versioning is properly documented: per-document history with author, date and changes, restore, checkout that locks the file for others, even merge with automatic re-versioning. Beyond the phrase rights management in the trial-scope list I found no public information on the permission model, on single sign-on or directory sync — and above all on any audit log of who read or changed what. For a product that presents itself as a foundation for revisionssicherheit, the silence on the trail itself is the story. 2 7 8
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
A page announces a GoBD software certificate, yet the captured content names no issuer, scope or date, and I found no public information on immutability of archived documents, retention periods per document type, WORM storage, legal hold, or a Z1–Z3 tax-audit export. Credit for the vendor's own page stating that a software certificate does not replace the GoBD procedure documentation — correct and honest, but honesty is not a Testat. 7 8 9 10
The Records Manager
The captured pages announce that a GoBD software certificate was received and offer guidance explaining that such a certificate does not replace the GoBD process documentation — more than a bare revisionssicherheit claim. We found no public information on the certificate's issuer, scope and date, on how immutability of archived documents is achieved, on configurable retention periods and deletion after expiry, or on WORM storage, legal hold or tax-audit data access. 7 8 9 10
The IT Integrator
There is more than a bare revisionssicherheit claim: a page announces that Amagno received a GoBD software certificate, and another page candidly explains that such a certificate alone does not replace the GoBD process documentation. However, we found no public information on how immutability of archived documents is technically achieved, on configurable retention periods and deletion after expiry, on legal hold, or on a Z1–Z3 tax-audit export, and the certificate's issuer, scope and date are not shown. 7 9 10
The Mittelstand Owner
The vendor states its document management provides one of the foundations for achieving revisionssicherheit, a captured page announces a GoBD software certificate, and a separate article openly explains that such a certificate does not replace the GoBD process documentation. We found no public information on the certificate's issuer, scope or date, on configurable retention periods, on how immutability is technically achieved, or on tax-audit data export. 7 9 10
The Data Protection Officer
Amagno publishes that it received a GoBD software certificate and explains on its own page that such a certificate alone does not replace the GoBD procedure documentation — guidance I can respect. For archiving proper I found no public information on how archived documents are made unchangeable, on configurable retention periods and deletion after expiry, or on reconciling GDPR deletion with retention duties, and the certificate's scope and date are not shown. 7 9 10
The Skeptic
The vendor announces a GoBD software certificate and states on another page that such a certificate alone does not replace the GoBD process documentation — a fair caveat, but the captured pages stop there. No certificate scope or date, no description of how archived documents are made unchangeable, no retention settings, no legal hold and no tax-audit export; being called one of the foundations for revisionssicherheit is a hedge, not evidence of the mechanics. 7 8 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
No-code workflows built from stamps that define responsibility, deadlines and escalation, ready-made invoice, contract and personnel processes, and named connectors for DATEV, DATEV Unternehmen online and Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central. I found no public information on the scope of those connectors, on webhooks or e-signature integration, and the RESTful API is named but I saw no published reference for it. 1 5 11 12
The Records Manager
Workflows are built without code using stamps that define responsibility, required data, deadlines and escalation, support sequential and parallel steps across departments, and ready-made invoice, contract and personnel processes install free from a solution store; emails and attachments flow into workflows with automatic versioning. Connectors are named — DATEV, Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central, sevDesk, lexoffice, Outlook — on a RESTful API with integration partnerships offered. We found no public information on webhooks or events, e-signature integration, process reporting, or versioned workflow definitions. 1 2 5 11 12
The IT Integrator
No-code workflows built from stamps — responsible person, required data, deadline, escalation — with multi-step and parallel approvals are documented, along with free ready-made invoice, contract and HR workflows in a solution store, and the invoice path from capture through approval to third-party handover is stated. Connectors go beyond a logo wall: DATEV Pro and DATEV Unternehmen online, Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central, lexoffice, sevDesk and an Outlook Add-In, all sitting on a RESTful API with an integration-partner programme. What I still miss as the person maintaining these links: written scope per connector, webhooks or events, and a public API reference with rate limits and a sandbox — we found no public information on any of these. 1 6 11 12
The Mittelstand Owner
Stamps instead of code define who approves, which data must be captured, the deadline and what happens when a task stalls; free ready-made invoice-intake workflows come from a built-in solution store; and DATEV, DATEV Unternehmen online, Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central, lexoffice and sevDesk sit on a Restful API with an Outlook Add-In. We found no public information on substitutes when an approver is away, webhooks, e-signature, or how deep each ERP connector goes. 1 5 11 12
The Data Protection Officer
Stamps instead of code define who handles a step, which data must be captured, and deadlines with escalation, ready-made invoice, contract and HR workflows are free in the solution store, and connectors to DATEV, Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central, lexoffice and others run over a REST API. I found no public information on webhooks or events, on e-signature, on the scope of each connector, or on a public API reference, and no statement that workflow history is kept in an audit trail. 1 5 11 12
The Skeptic
No-code stamp-based workflows with responsibilities, deadlines and escalation, parallel and multi-department steps, ready-made invoice, contract and HR workflows in a solution store, and a long named connector list including DATEV and Microsoft Dynamics — more than most. The connector scopes are not stated, and I found no public information on e-signature, webhooks or events, process reporting with throughput times, or workflow definitions kept in the audit trail. 1 5 6 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 search across more than 100 formats with saved searches, expert search and rights respected, and an export any group administrator can run at any time, free of charge and without the vendor's help — original format, all versions, and metadata as XML or CSV are documented options, covering whole groups or complete search results. I found no public information on an audit-trail export, and nothing on the post-termination retrieval window or data deletion. 2 8 13 14
The Records Manager
Full-text search covers over one hundred formats with saved and expert searches, similar-document search, web access on mobile devices, and is stated to respect the user's rights; import from a network drive is documented. The exit is unusually well documented: a group administrator can export the entire group, folders or a complete search result at any time, free and without vendor involvement, in original format with properties as XML or CSV and all versions. We found no public information on exporting the audit trail, a documented export schema, or the post-termination retrieval window and data deletion. 5 8 13 14
The IT Integrator
Search and, above all, the way out are well documented: full-text search across more than 100 formats with saved and expert searches, permission-aware results, and an export a group administrator can run free and self-service at any time without Amagno's involvement — whole group, magnets, folders or an entire search result — in original format or PDF, with selectable versions and properties as XML or CSV. Import from network drives is documented too, which gives a path in from file shares. We found no public information on exporting an audit trail or on the post-termination retrieval window and data deletion. 8 13 14
The Mittelstand Owner
Full-text search across more than 100 formats with saved and expert searches that respect my rights in any browser, and a group administrator can export the whole archive, any folder or an entire search result at any time, free and without Amagno lifting a finger, with all versions in original format or PDF and metadata as XML, CSV or TXT. We found no public information on exporting an audit trail alongside the documents, on the retrieval window after termination, or on a documented path in from another DMS. 2 13 14
The Data Protection Officer
Search is permission-aware across more than one hundred formats with saved and expert searches and mobile web access, and the exit is unusually well handled: a group administrator can export the entire group or a complete search result at any time, free and self-service, in original format or PDF with chosen versions and properties as XML, CSV or TXT. I found no mention of the audit trail among the documented export options, and no statement on a post-termination retrieval window, data deletion or long-term formats such as PDF/A. 13 14
The Skeptic
Export is documented in unusual detail: a group administrator can take everything self-service, at any time, free of charge and without any action by the vendor — original format or PDF, all versions, properties as XML, CSV or TXT, even a complete search result. Search is full-text across over 100 formats with saved queries and permission-aware results, and import from a network drive is named. What the pages do not show is the audit trail among the export options, and any statement of the post-termination retrieval window or deletion. 5 8 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 vendor's pages state encrypted storage in German data centres for the business cloud, an on-premises edition is offered, and the only processor I can see named is the website hoster, a German company. Beyond that the independently checked attributes come back unknown — I found no public information on the ownership structure, the subprocessors behind the document cloud, or where any AI-based recognition of document content runs. 1 2 3 7
The Records Manager
German origin and storage are stated repeatedly — made in Oldenburg, encrypted storage in German data centres, the business cloud holding over ten million documents in the German legal area — and an on-premises edition is offered. We found no public information on ownership of the contracting entity, on subprocessors for the document cloud beyond the website hoster, on where AI processing of document content runs, or on certifications such as ISO 27001 or BSI C5. 1 2 3 7 10
The IT Integrator
Encrypted storage in German data centres in the German legal area, a Made-in-Oldenburg origin and an on-premises edition are stated, and the privacy policy names the German host of the vendor's own website. But the data centres are described as German without being named, and we found no public information on the subprocessors of the business cloud itself, on where any AI processing of document content runs, or on certifications such as ISO 27001 or BSI C5. 1 2 3 8 10
The Mittelstand Owner
Vendor pages promise encrypted storage in German data centres and data held in the German legal area, an on-premises edition exists, and the privacy policy names only the website hoster Droptop with a German address. The independently sourced attributes mark residency and ownership as unconfirmed, and we found no public information on named data centres, a subprocessor list for the business cloud, AI processing locations, or certifications such as ISO 27001 or BSI C5. 1 2 3 8 10
The Data Protection Officer
The essentials are stated: a German vendor, documents and metadata held in German data centres in the business cloud, encrypted storage, and an on-premises edition for those who want the keys themselves. But I found no public information on the subprocessors of the business cloud, on where the AI-based classification and extraction run or which provider performs them, or on certifications such as ISO 27001 or BSI C5; the only processor the privacy policy names is the website host. 1 2 3 7 10
The Skeptic
German origin and data centres in Germany are stated on the vendor's own pages and an on-premises edition exists, but the independent attributes come back unknown for contracting entity, ownership and subprocessors, with residency not confirmed as captured. The only processor named in the captures is the website hoster, and I found no public information on a subprocessor list for the business cloud, on ISO 27001 or BSI C5 certifications, or on where AI recognition runs. 1 2 3 8 10
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
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
A public pricing page exists and a free test account with nearly all functions is offered, but the captured pages quote no figures for users, editions, storage or the on-premises licence, and special integrations are marked as optionally chargeable without amounts. A buyer cannot compute the total cost from what is published here. 2 5
The Records Manager
The captured pricing page describes a free trial with almost all functions, an on-premises edition, and optional paid integrations, but we found no public information on prices per user or for storage, on-premises licence and maintenance terms, or the cost of implementation. A buyer cannot compute any cost from what is public here, and we found no public information on contract term, notice period or price-increase terms. 2
The IT Integrator
The captured pricing pages confirm a free test account covering almost all functions with data carry-over, an on-premises edition, and that special integrations are optionally chargeable — but we found no public figures for editions, per-user prices, storage, maintenance or implementation. A buyer cannot compute even a rough total for a given team from these pages alone. 2 5
The Mittelstand Owner
The captured pricing page tells me I may choose cloud or on-premises, test almost everything free, and that special integrations cost extra — but we found no public information on a single price per user or edition, storage limits or overage, maintenance terms, contract periods, or implementation costs. Before the partner visit I can compute exactly one thing: the trial is free. 1 2 5
The Data Protection Officer
The pricing page tells me that special integrations are optionally paid and that services and trainings are only on request, but I found no price figures in any captured page — nothing per user or per month, no storage limits, no maintenance terms for the on-premises edition, no implementation cost. The real cost of a given deployment cannot be computed from the public pages as captured. 1 2
The Skeptic
A pricing page was captured and a business-cloud price list is described as published, yet not one figure appears in the captured facts: no edition prices, no storage limits, no maintenance terms, no on-premises licence costs, and integrations only as "optional kostenpflichtig erhältlich". A free test account is not a price, and from what is shown a buyer cannot compute any part of the real cost. 2 5
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 AMAGNO
Is AMAGNO European?
Yes. whats-best.ai classifies AMAGNO as EU-Made.
Where does AMAGNO store data?
The default storage location for customer data is not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026. The vendor’s pages mention Germany as hosting location, per the vendor’s page captured 13 Oct 2026.
Does AMAGNO have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to AMAGNO?
As of 15 Oct 2026, the panel rates Doxis (3/5), EASY Archive (2.5/5) and enaio (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 Doxis (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: AMAGNO 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 — 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.
- 11 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
- 6 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
- 6 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
- 3 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
- 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 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
- The panel’s written verdict is withheld: our own re-read found claims in it that the evidence does not carry, and a second synthesis did not fix them. The scores and the material below are unaffected. Know more? Tell us
Sources (14)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage amagno.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page amagno.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy amagno.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Legal notice amagno.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Capture, OCR & indexing — found from sitemap amagno.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Capture, OCR & indexing — found from sitemap amagno.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Versioning, permissions & audit trail — found from sitemap amagno.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Versioning, permissions & audit trail — found from sitemap amagno.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Audit-proof archiving & retention — found from sitemap amagno.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Audit-proof archiving & retention — found from sitemap amagno.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Document workflows & integrations — found from sitemap amagno.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Document workflows & integrations — found from sitemap amagno.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Search, retrieval & exit — found from sitemap amagno.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 Search, retrieval & exit — found from sitemap amagno.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →