Document Management (DMS)
d.velop documents
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by d.velop AG · www.d-velop.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.
d.velop documents at a glance
- Vendor
- d.velop AG
- 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 d.velop documents 2/5, the mean of 6 judges. d.velop documents, the document management system of d.velop AG of Gescher, Germany, is strongest on document workflows at 7 with no spread: a documented SAP invoice workflow with automatic booking, three-way match and approvals via a Fiori app, connectors named for SAP, SAGE, APplus, Oracle, Salesforce, Dynamics 365 and Microsoft 365. 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
d.velop documents, the document management system of d.velop AG of Gescher, Germany, is strongest on document workflows at 7 with no spread: a documented SAP invoice workflow with automatic booking, three-way match and approvals via a Fiori app, connectors named for SAP, SAGE, APplus, Oracle, Salesforce, Dynamics 365 and Microsoft 365. Capture and indexing follows at 6-7 on scanner, email and Peppol intake, with ZUGFeRD and XRechnung as structured formats. Pricing transparency is weakest at 0-1 — no price figure appears on public pages and every product path ends in an individual demo request — while sovereignty at 0-3 is the genuine split: the captured pages give no public information on cloud storage location, subprocessors or where the AI that reads document content runs, and judges disagreed on how much credit the German vendor, German recipients for website functions and an on-premises option earn against that silence. Versioning and permissions and search and portability each sit at 4; audit-proof archiving spans 4-6, its GoBD substance resting on vendor material with no public information on an independent auditor's report.
Speaks for it
- Document workflows scored 7 with no spread on a documented SAP invoice workflow with automatic booking, three-way match and approvals via a Fiori app.
- Connectors are named for SAP, SAGE, APplus, Oracle, Salesforce, Microsoft Dynamics 365 and Microsoft 365, with a REST API for custom applications.
- Capture and indexing scored 6-7 on scanner, email and Peppol intake with automatic extraction of invoice fields and ZUGFeRD and XRechnung processed as structured formats.
- Free sample Verfahrensdokumentationen from AVV, DFKA and BStBK and retention policies that block deletion and modification give the GoBD claim substance.
- Search is well evidenced, with real-time enterprise search across connected applications that cites sources and respects access rights, plus mobile apps with offline documents.
Held against it
- Pricing transparency scored 0-1, with no price figure on public pages and every product path ending in an individual demo request.
- Sovereignty scored 0-3, with no public information on where the cloud edition stores documents, the product's subprocessors, or where the AI that reads document content runs.
- Versioning and permissions scored 4 with no spread, with no public information on check-in and check-out, an audit trail of reads and exports, or single sign-on.
- Search and portability scored 4, with no public information on bulk export of documents with metadata and versions or a post-termination retrieval window.
- Audit-proof archiving spans 4-6, resting on vendor material with no public information on an auditor's report, WORM storage or the Z1-Z3 tax-audit export.
Best for
- You run SAP S/4HANA and want invoice booking, three-way match and approvals inside the SAP world, with deployment paths spelled out for Public Cloud, Private Cloud and On-Premises.
- You must receive German e-invoices — ZUGFeRD and XRechnung under the EN 16931 profiles — and want booking-relevant fields extracted and matched against order data automatically.
- You are a German mid-sized business preparing for GoBD archiving and want free sample Verfahrensdokumentations and a digital file plan that maps their structure one to one.
- You want to keep cloud, on-premises and hybrid operation open as deployment choices.
Avoid if
- You are not a business customer — the offer is directed exclusively at business customers.
- You need a computable cost from public pages before any vendor conversation, since pricing transparency scored 0-1 and software access runs through an individual live demo.
- Your data protection officer must clear storage location, subprocessors and AI processing location for the product before contract — sovereignty scored 0-3 with no public information on these.
- Your exit plan needs a documented bulk export with metadata, versions and audit trail before signing — search and portability scored 4 with no public information on the exit side.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Capture, OCR & indexing | 3.5 of 5 |
| Versioning, permissions & audit trail | 2 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 | 0 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
Intake is well documented: paper via scanner, PDF, e-mail and a Peppol e-invoice network, with booking-relevant fields such as invoice number, order number, date and creditor automatically extracted and matched against order data, and ZUGFeRD and XRechnung processed as structured formats with an AI-assisted review step. I found no public information on extraction confidence, duplicate detection, or where the AI models that read document content actually run. 5 6 9
The Records Manager
Intake is broadly documented: paper via scanner, PDF, email and the Peppol e-invoice network, plus file-system import and camera capture, with OCR identifying recipients and booking-relevant fields such as invoice number, date, creditor and line items extracted automatically and matched against order data. ZUGFeRD and XRechnung are processed as structured data under the EN 16931 profiles, and an AI-assisted review step exists. We found no public information on duplicate detection or on the confidence of the classification and field extraction. 5 6 9 12
The IT Integrator
Intake is broadly documented — scanner, PDF, mail and the Peppol network — with classification, OCR-based recipient recognition and automatic extraction of invoice, order, date, creditor and position data, and ZUGFeRD and XRechnung handled as structured formats. What holds it back for me: we found no public information on extraction confidence values, duplicate detection, or where the AI that reads document content is processed. 5 6 9 12
The Mittelstand Owner
Intake from paper, PDF, e-mail and the Peppol e-invoice network, automatic reading of invoice number, date, creditor and line data matched against purchase orders, classification in the digital post intake, and ZUGFeRD and XRechnung processed as structured formats with a validation and AI-supported review step — that is exactly the e-invoice intake I need. We found no public information on duplicate detection, on extraction confidence values, or on where the AI processing runs, so it stays just below the top band. 5 6 8 9
The Data Protection Officer
Digital post intake captures, classifies and distributes documents from scanner, email and Peppol, and booking-relevant invoice fields such as number, date, creditor and position data are read out automatically; ZUGFeRD and XRechnung are processed as structured formats meeting EN 16931, with an AI-supported review step in the invoice workflow. What holds this below the top is that I found no public information on extraction confidence values, duplicate detection, or where and by which provider the AI that reads document content actually runs. 5 6 9 10
The Skeptic
Scanner, e-mail and Peppol intake plus mobile camera capture are documented, invoice fields from number to position data are automatically extracted and matched against order data, and ZUGFeRD and XRechnung are processed as structured formats with a human review step. We found no public information on confidence handling for the AI classification, on duplicate detection, or on where the AI processing of document content runs, so the capture story is documented but not shown end to end. 5 6 9 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 is documented as immutable in effect — a new version is stored for every change to a document — and access to archived documents is governed by individual permission structures that also apply in AI processes. I found no public information on check-in and check-out, single sign-on or directory synchronisation, or an audit trail covering reads, exports and deletions together with its retention period. 8 9
The Records Manager
Version management is documented — a separate version is stored for every change to a document — and access runs through individual permission structures that also apply in AI processes and in search results. We found no public information on check-in and check-out, on restoring earlier versions, on single sign-on and directory sync, or on an audit trail of reads and changes; the auditable decisions advertised apply to AI agent decisions. For a filing plan that must prove who touched a contract, that gap decides the score. 1 8 9 11
The IT Integrator
Versioning is documented — a new version is filed for every change to a document — and access runs through permission structures that also bind the search and the AI processes. We found no public information on check-in and check-out, a documented audit log covering reads, exports and deletions, or single sign-on and directory sync, so the access model I would have to defend in a customer audit stays unverified. 8 9 11 5
The Mittelstand Owner
Versioning with immutable version history and permission structures that control archive access and carry through into AI answers and search are documented. We found no public information on check-out, restore, role or record-level rights, single sign-on or a documented audit trail — as an owner I need to prove who saw and released which invoice, and that trail is not evidenced. 5 8 9 11
The Data Protection Officer
Versioning with a corresponding version kept for every change to a document is documented, and access to the digital archive is controlled through individual permission structures. I found no public information on check-in and check-out, restore of earlier versions, single sign-on or directory sync, or an audit log of who read or changed which document — the evidence I would need to demonstrate need-to-know access for HR and legal records. 8 9
The Skeptic
Versioning that files a new version for every change and individually configured permission structures for archive access are claimed, and the agent center promises transparent, auditable decisions. We found no public information on check-in and check-out, on an audit trail covering reads and exports, on single sign-on or directory sync, or on logging of administrators' own actions. 1 8 9
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
The GoBD claim goes beyond a homepage badge: a whitepaper on GoBD-compliant archiving with SharePoint Online, retention policies that block deletion and modification, and support for a complete digital Verfahrensdokumentation with sample templates from AVV, DFKA and BStBK. What decides the score is the missing independent evidence — I found no public information on an auditor's report such as IDW PS 880, on WORM storage, on retention periods configurable per document type, or on a Z1–Z3 export the tax office can read. 6 7 8
The Records Manager
Revision-safe, GoBD-conform archiving is claimed and backed by real guidance: free sample Verfahrensdokumentationen, webinars and whitepapers, retention policies that block deletion and modification, and versioning that keeps every change. We found no public information on a published auditor's report such as IDW PS 880, on retention periods configurable per document type with deletion after expiry, or on Z1–Z3 tax-audit data access. Without independent evidence the claim rests on the vendor's own words. 6 7 8 9
The IT Integrator
Revisionssichere archiving and GoBD conformity come with unusual substance: retention rules that block deletion and modification, GoBD-compliant archiving of ZUGFeRD documents without conversion into a separate archive format, and a complete Verfahrensdokumentation offer with free templates and a digital file plan that maps its structure one to one. We found no public information on an auditor's report such as an IDW PS 880 Testat, on WORM storage, legal hold, or the Z1–Z3 tax-audit data export — exactly the evidence a German tax auditor will ask me for. 6 7 8 9
The Mittelstand Owner
GoBD conformity, immutability via retention policies and versioning, a digital file plan that mirrors the Verfahrensdokumentation one to one, and free sample Verfahrensdokumentationen from AVV, DFKA and BStBK are documented, which is solid guidance. We found no public information on an auditor's report or Testat, on retention periods configurable per document type, on deletion after expiry, or on the Z1–Z3 tax-audit export, so the revisionssicher claim rests on the vendor's own material. 6 7 8 9
The Data Protection Officer
GoBD conformity is argued in substance rather than as a slogan: the six central requirements including immutability are laid out, versioning and retention policies are described as preventing deletion and modification of archived documents, and free sample Verfahrensdokumentationen plus guidance webinars and whitepapers are offered. I found no public information on an auditor's report, WORM or equivalent storage, legal hold, the Z1 to Z3 tax-audit export, or how GDPR deletion is reconciled with retention duties, so the claim cannot be verified independently. 6 7 8
The Skeptic
GoBD conformity and revisionssichere archiving are claimed, and there is substance behind the words: sample Verfahrensdokumentation templates from AVV, DFKA and BStBK, an automated update of the Verfahrensdokumentation, immutability via versioning and retention policies, and GoBD-compliant archiving of ZUGFeRD documents without conversion. We found no public information on an auditor's report or Testat, on retention periods configurable per document type with logged deletion after expiry, or on Z1–Z3 tax-audit data access. 6 7 8
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 invoice workflow is documented in depth for SAP — automatic booking, three-way match, customisable approval steps, approvals via a Fiori app, substitutes on absence — and connectors are named for SAP, SAGE, APplus, Oracle, Salesforce and Microsoft Dynamics 365 alongside a REST API, Microsoft 365 integration and mobile workflow participation. I found no public information on a DATEV handover, webhooks or events, process reporting with throughput times, or a public API reference with rate limits. 9 10
The Records Manager
The invoice workflow is concrete: automatic booking, checking and release fully integrated with SAP purchasing and financial accounting, individually configurable approval steps, approvals via SAP Fiori, three-way match, and substitution when someone is absent. Connectors are named for SAP, SAGE, APplus, Oracle, Salesforce, Microsoft Dynamics 365 and Microsoft 365, e-signature is offered, and a REST API is available for custom applications. We found no public information on a DATEV handover, webhooks or events, or a public API reference with rate limits and a sandbox; the process studio appears in a webinar description without graphical modelling being documented. 5 9 10 11
The IT Integrator
The SAP invoice workflow is the strongest documented piece: automated booking, checking and release, three-way match, approvals through a Fiori app, and two spelled-out deployment paths including clean core on SAP BAIP. Connectors are named for SAP, SAGE, APplus, Oracle, Salesforce and Dynamics 365 with a REST API for own applications and standard connectors for the rest — but connector scope is spelled out only for SAP, and we found no public information on webhooks or events, DATEV handover, or a public API reference with rate limits and a sandbox, which is what I need to keep integrations maintainable without the vendor's services team. 9 10 11 5
The Mittelstand Owner
Individualizable approval steps with automatic three-way match, due-date and cash-discount control, substitutes notified on absence, mobile approvals and a documented REST API, plus connectors for SAP, SAGE, APplus, Oracle, Salesforce, Dynamics 365 and Microsoft 365, cover a mid-sized company's invoice flow without a consultant-built mystery. We found no public information on a DATEV handover, on webhooks or events, or on graphical no-code workflow modelling — the process studio appears only as a webinar topic — which keeps it below the top band. 5 9 10 12
The Data Protection Officer
Invoice workflows with customizable approval steps, absence substitutes and an automatic three-way match are documented with deep SAP integration, connectors are named for SAP, SAGE, APplus, Oracle, Salesforce, Microsoft Dynamics 365 and Microsoft 365, and a REST API, standard interfaces and digital signature are stated. I found no public information on webhooks or events, DATEV handover, or a published API reference with its scope, which keeps this just short of the higher mark. 5 9 10
The Skeptic
The SAP invoice workflow comes with real scope — FI and MM invoices, automatic three-way match, approvals via a Fiori app, deployment paths per SAP edition — and around it sit a REST API, standard connectors to SAP, SAGE, APplus, Oracle, Salesforce, Dynamics 365 and Microsoft 365, substitutes for absentees and due-date management. We found no public information on webhooks or events, on a public API reference, on the scope of the individual connectors beyond their names, or on a DATEV handover. 5 9 10 11
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
Search is strongly evidenced: real-time enterprise search across documents, e-mails and connected applications, saved search templates, access rights respected, and mobile apps for Android and iOS with offline use. For the exit I found no public information on bulk export of documents with their metadata, versions and audit trail, on export formats and schema, or on a post-termination retrieval window — that silence costs real points. 11 12
The Records Manager
Search is solid: enterprise search running in real time across company applications, AI answers that cite sources and respect the user's access rights, saved search templates, and mobile apps for Android and iOS with offline use. But taking the records with you is unevidenced — we found no public information on bulk export of documents together with their metadata and versions, on export formats, or on the post-termination retrieval window. When the contract ends, I cannot tell a client what leaves this system. 8 11 12
The IT Integrator
Search is strong: full-text and AI answers across connected applications with access rights respected, search templates and favourites, and mobile apps with offline synchronisation. This criterion also covers the way out, though, and we found no public information on bulk export of documents with metadata, versions and audit trail, on an import path from other systems, or on the post-termination retrieval window — a migration I will not run through the vendor's services team. 11 12 8
The Mittelstand Owner
Search is well documented: real-time search across documents, e-mails, file directories, wikis and web pages with AI answers and source citations, saved search templates, and mobile apps with offline documents. We found no public information on bulk export of documents with metadata, versions or audit trail, on any export schema, or on a post-termination retrieval window, so the exit side is unevidenced — that I want settled before signing, not after. 8 11 12
The Data Protection Officer
Search is well evidenced: real-time full-text search across documents, emails, file directories and company applications, saved search templates, mobile apps with offline copies, and AI answers that cite sources under the user's access rights. For the exit side I found no public information on bulk export of documents with their metadata, versions or audit trail, or a documented retrieval window after termination — the part a data protection officer needs when a contract ends. 8 11 12
The Skeptic
Retrieval is well evidenced: real-time search across enterprise applications with access rights respected and sources cited, saved search templates, crosslingual German and English retrieval, and full mobile access with offline documents and background download. On the exit side we found no public information on bulk export of documents with their metadata and versions, on a documented export structure or schema, or on a post-termination retrieval window — strong search, undocumented portability. 11 12
European sovereignty
panel opinion
panel disagrees
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 captured pages leave open who the contracting entity is, where documents and their metadata are stored in the cloud edition, and who the subprocessors are — including any AI provider that reads document content; the privacy policy names only German recipients for website functions such as website hosting and event registration. I found no public information on data residency for the document cloud, a published subprocessor list, or certifications with their scope. 3 11
The Records Manager
We found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction or ownership, on where the cloud edition stores documents and metadata, or on the product's subprocessors — including any provider that processes document content for the AI. The privacy statements captured cover website processing only and name German recipients for website functions, while the AI is described as running on a "sichere Infrastruktur" with no location given. For document custody, that is nothing to hand a data protection officer. 3 5
The IT Integrator
The captured pages give no confirmation of the contracting entity and its ownership, and for the cloud edition we found no public information on where documents and metadata are stored, on the subprocessor list, or on where the AI that reads document content is processed. An on-premises or hybrid deployment is at least offered, and the privacy policy names only German recipients with no third-country transfer — but that covers the website, not the DMS. 3 5 11 12
The Mittelstand Owner
The vendor is presented as d.velop AG in Gescher, Germany, and offers on-premises or hybrid operation, but we found no public information on where the cloud edition stores documents and metadata, on a subprocessor list for the product, or on where d.velop AI processes document content; the recipients named in the privacy policy concern the website and events, not the DMS chain. ISO 27001 appears only as a whitepaper topic, so my questions on storage location and the AI provider remain open for the partner visit. 3 5 11 12
The Data Protection Officer
d.velop AG of Gescher offers cloud and on-premises editions, and the privacy policy names German recipients for website and recruiting processing with no third-country transfers. For the product itself I found no public information on where the cloud edition stores documents and metadata, on the subprocessor list for hosting, or on which provider and location process content through d.velop AI and AmberAI — a gap I cannot accept for personnel files and health records. 3 5 11
The Skeptic
The captured pages show a German-language vendor with German website processors named in Berlin, Herford and Munich, but for the product itself we found no public information on where documents and metadata are stored in the cloud edition, on who the hosting and other subprocessors are, or on where d.velop AI and AmberAI process document content. A vendor that advertises sovereign solutions for public administrations while the captured pages leave the processing chain and the contracting entity unconfirmed earns little credit here. 1 3 4
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 captured store page shows the service hotline and academy trainings, and software access is presented through an individually booked demo; I found no public information on prices for editions, users, modules, storage, maintenance or partner implementation. A buyer cannot compute any part of the cost from the public pages. 2 8
The Records Manager
The privacy policy confirms that orders can be placed in an onlineshop and a store page was captured, but no price figure of any kind is confirmed anywhere: we found no public information on edition or module prices, storage limits, maintenance terms, partner implementation fees, or contract term and notice period. What is offered publicly is an individual live demo on request. A buyer cannot compute anything from these pages. 2 3 4 7
The IT Integrator
The captured store page shows no prices, and every other route ends in an individual demo request. With no public information on editions, per-user pricing, storage, modules, maintenance or partner implementation, I cannot compute a customer's cost from public pages at all. 2 7 10
The Mittelstand Owner
The captured store page shows academy trainings and a service hotline, and everything product-related routes to an individual demo request; we found no public information on edition prices, per-user costs, storage limits, module pricing, maintenance or contract terms. For a forty-person shop like mine the real cost is therefore only knowable after the partner visit — precisely what I wanted to avoid. 2 7 10
The Data Protection Officer
The captured store page shows a service hotline and training offerings, and we found no public information on prices for any edition, module, storage or maintenance — software is presented only via an individual live demo on request. A buyer cannot compute any part of the total cost from public pages alone. 2 7
The Skeptic
The captured store page offers a service hotline and academy trainings, and every product path ends in an individual demo request; we found no public prices for any edition, module, storage tier or on-premises licence, and no maintenance or contract-term information. The cost of the software is not computable from public pages, and a demo form is not a price. 2 7 11
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 | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about d.velop documents
Is d.velop documents European?
Yes. whats-best.ai classifies d.velop documents as EU-Made.
Where does d.velop documents store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does d.velop documents have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to d.velop documents?
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: d.velop documents 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 — 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.
- 18 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
- 5 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
- 5 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
- 3 integrations facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 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
- 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
- 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 (12)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.d-velop.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page store.d-velop.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.d-velop.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Legal notice www.d-velop.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Capture, OCR & indexing — found from sitemap www.d-velop.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Capture, OCR & indexing — found from sitemap www.d-velop.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Audit-proof archiving & retention — found from sitemap www.d-velop.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Audit-proof archiving & retention — found from sitemap www.d-velop.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Document workflows & integrations — found from sitemap www.d-velop.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Document workflows & integrations — found from sitemap www.d-velop.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Search, retrieval & exit — found from sitemap www.d-velop.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Search, retrieval & exit — found from sitemap www.d-velop.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →