Document Management (DMS)
Doxis
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Doxis GmbH · www.doxis.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.
Doxis at a glance
- Vendor
- Doxis 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 Doxis 3/5, the mean of 6 judges. Doxis is an enterprise document management platform from Doxis GmbH of Bonn — strongest at document intake, weakest at sovereignty. 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
Doxis is an enterprise document management platform from Doxis GmbH of Bonn — strongest at document intake, weakest at sovereignty. Capture and indexing cluster at 8, on classification of 50+ document types, OCR extracting 150+ fields with configurable confidence and human review, and duplicate and fraud detection; document workflows land at 7 on purchase-to-pay running natively in SAP over certified ArchiveLink, CMIS and RFC interfaces without middleware. Versioning and permissions score 3 to 4: access control appears as named features, with no public information on version restore, single sign-on or audit-trail retention. Sovereignty spreads 2 to 3 — a Bonn legal entity and GDPR data subject rights are published, but data residency, subprocessors and the owner behind the private-equity-held vendor are unknown, as is where the AI processing runs. Audit-proof archiving spreads 4 to 6: most credit the published GoBD and IDW PS 880 certification pages, while the tax auditor found no public information on the report's auditor, scope or date. Search and portability scores run 5 to 6, strong on permission-enforced, source-linked answers, thin on exit. No prices are published.
Speaks for it
- Capture and indexing scores cluster at 8, on AI classification of 50+ document types, OCR extraction of 150+ data fields, and duplicate and fraud detection before data enters processes
- Purchase-to-pay modules run natively in SAP over certified ArchiveLink, CMIS and RFC interfaces without middleware, from requisition through invoice posting
- Event-condition-action automation and a library of pre-configured, easily modified workflow apps work without programming
- Search combines keyword, full-text, metadata, vector and natural-language modes, with permissions enforced on every query and AI answers linked to the original documents
- Dedicated certification pages for GoBD and IDW PS 880 are published, stating that certification demonstrates to auditors of annual financial statements that the systems are suited to the purpose
Held against it
- Sovereignty scores run 2 to 3, with data residency, subprocessors and ownership all recorded as unknown
- No public information on where the AI processing runs or which model provider reads document content during capture and AI search
- We found no public information on version restore, check-in and check-out, single sign-on, or what the audit trail records and how long it is retained
- The exit is undocumented: no public information on a complete export of documents with versions and audit trail, or on a post-termination retrieval window
- We found no public information on the certification's issuing auditor, scope or date, or on WORM storage, legal hold or a tax-audit export
Best for
- You run SAP and want purchase-to-pay document automation that posts natively over certified interfaces without middleware
- You process large invoice volumes and need trainable classification, extraction with confidence thresholds and human review, and ZUGFeRD, XRechnung or Peppol UBL support at intake
- You need enterprise search across repositories with permissions enforced on every query and AI answers linked to source documents
Avoid if
- You must establish where documents are stored, who the subprocessors are and where AI processing runs before signing
- You need the archiving certification substantiated — issuing auditor, scope, date, technical immutability, legal hold — before relying on it in a tax audit
- Your exit plan depends on a documented complete export of documents with versions and audit trail and a post-termination retrieval window
- You need to compute the cost of a deployment from published prices before a sales conversation
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Capture, OCR & indexing | 4 of 5 |
| Versioning, permissions & audit trail | 2 of 5 |
| Audit-proof archiving & retention | 3 of 5 |
| Document workflows & integrations | 3.5 of 5 |
| Search, retrieval & exit | 3 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1.5 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 broadly documented — email, scanners, mobile devices, API, SFTP and batch import — with high-accuracy OCR extracting 150+ data fields, AI classification of 50+ document types that can also be self-trained, configurable confidence with human review on uncertain cases, validation against business rules and master data, duplicate detection, and support for ZUGFeRD, XRechnung and Peppol UBL. I found no public information on where the AI processing runs or which model provider is behind it, on the capacity limits of the individual intake channels, or on validation of e-invoices against the standard itself. 4 5 8
The Records Manager
Capture is well evidenced: documents arrive via web upload, email, mobile capture, API, SFTP or batch import; machine learning sorts 50-plus document types with training of your own; extraction of 150-plus fields runs with configurable confidence levels, human review on uncertain cases, and validation that flags duplicates before anything reaches downstream processes; and ZUGFeRD, XRechnung and Peppol UBL e-invoice formats are supported. What keeps it short of the top: we found no public information on the limits of each intake channel or on where the AI processing actually runs. 4 5 8
The IT Integrator
Classification of 50+ document types with trainable custom types, OCR extracting 150+ data fields, configurable confidence thresholds with human review, duplicate detection in validation, and ZUGFeRD, XRechnung and Peppol UBL support are all documented, with intake channels from email and scanners to API and SFTP. We found no public information on where the AI processing runs or on limits per intake channel, which is what the top level asks for. 4 5 8
The Mittelstand Owner
Capture is genuinely strong: documents arrive via web upload, email, mobile, API, SFTP and batch import, AI classifies 50-plus document types with the option to train my own, extraction of 150-plus fields runs with confidence checks and human review of uncertain cases, and duplicates and forged documents are caught before anything enters a process; ZUGFeRD, XRechnung and Peppol UBL are supported for e-invoices. We found no public information on where the AI processing runs (location or model provider) or on each intake channel's limits, and Microsoft 365 is not named as an intake channel. 4 5 8
The Data Protection Officer
Intake covers email, scanners, mobile devices, ERP systems, cloud applications, APIs and shared folders, with OCR extracting 150+ data fields, 50+ document types classified and trainable, configurable confidence levels with human review, duplicate and fraud detection, and ZUGFeRD, XRechnung and Peppol UBL supported as e-invoice formats. We found no public information on where the AI processing runs or which model provider reads document content during capture and indexing, which for personnel files is the question I need answered before anything else. 4 5 8
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
Role-based access and audit trails are named among the governance features, every search is said to respect the permissions defined in the system, and versioning is mentioned for documents transferred in. I found no public information on check-out and restore, on what the audit trail actually records — reads, exports, deletions, administrator actions — on tamper-evidence or export of the log, or on single sign-on and directory synchronisation. 5 10 11
The Records Manager
Role-based access and audit trails are named among the governance controls, every search is said to respect the access permissions defined in the system, and versioning is mentioned when transferring file directories into the repository. We found no public information on version restore, check-in and check-out, single sign-on or directory sync, metadata-driven permissions, or on what the audit trail records and how long it is kept — the recoverability question a records manager asks first is unanswered on these pages. 5 10 11
The IT Integrator
Role-based access and audit trails are named as governance features, search is documented to respect defined access permissions, and versioning is mentioned when transferring files into the archive. We found no public information on version restore, check-in and check-out, single sign-on or directory sync, metadata-driven or field-level rights, or the tamper-evidence and retention period of the audit log. 5 10 11
The Mittelstand Owner
Role-based access, audit trails and versioning are named, and every search is documented to respect the permissions defined in the system. I found no public detail on version restore or check-out, on record-level or document-type rights, on single sign-on and directory sync, or on what the audit trail records and how long it is kept — as an owner who must show who approved which invoice, that is thin for an enterprise system. 5 10 11
The Data Protection Officer
Role-based access and audit trails are named among the governance features, search is stated to respect the access permissions defined in the system, and audit trails are said to govern AI-generated answers as well. We found no public information on version restore, check-in and check-out, single sign-on or directory sync, on what the audit trail records, or on how long it is retained, so I cannot establish who saw which personnel file. 5 10 11
The Skeptic
Versioning, role-based access and audit trails appear as named security features, and search is said to respect the access permissions defined in the system — but as feature names, not documentation. We found no public information on version restore, check-in and check-out, record- or field-level rights, single sign-on or directory sync, tamper-evidence or exportability of the audit trail, or how long logs are retained. 5 10 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
The vendor claims electronic archiving is "completely audit-proof", points to a certification that demonstrates to annual financial statement auditors that the systems are suited to the purpose, and lists retention policies and proof of compliance with retention periods among the features. I found no public information on the issuing auditor, scope and date of any auditor's report, on how immutability of archived documents is technically achieved, on retention settings per document type and deletion after expiry, on legal hold, or on a tax-audit data export in the Z1 to Z3 procedure; a certification claim of this kind carries little weight in a tax audit without those particulars. 5 7 8 9
The Records Manager
Certification pages for GoBD and for IDW PS 880 are published, and the latter states that the certification demonstrates to auditors of annual financial statements that the IT system is suited to the purpose; automated archiving by your own rules, proof of compliance with retention periods, and deletion that respects statutory retention duties are all described. The captured pages give neither the auditor's report with its scope and date nor any description of WORM storage, legal hold or a Z1-to-Z3 tax-audit export, so the promise of completely audit-proof archiving rests on the certificates being named rather than shown in substance. 2 6 7 9
The IT Integrator
An IDW PS 880 certification page states that certification demonstrates to auditors that the system is suited to compliant accounting storage, retention-period compliance is described, and GDPR deletion is reconciled with statutory retention duties. We found no public information on the certification's scope and date, WORM or equivalent storage, legal hold, or a Z1 to Z3 tax-audit export, so it stops short of the upper level. 2 5 7
The Mittelstand Owner
Dedicated certification pages for GoBD and IDW PS 880 exist, and the captured page states the certification demonstrates to auditors of annual financial statements that the IT systems are suited to the purpose; archiving is described as in line with audit requirements and legal retention periods, with rules-based automatic archiving, and the privacy policy reconciles deletion with statutory retention duties. We found no public information on the certification's scope and date, on WORM storage, on legal hold, or on a Z1–Z3 tax-audit export. 2 6 7 8
The Data Protection Officer
A certification page dedicated to IDW PS 880 names the auditor's report, states its purpose for auditors of annual financial statements and quotes findings that accounting documents are stored in line with audit requirements and legal retention periods, a GoBD certification page is also published, and the privacy policy reconciles deletion with statutory retention duties. We found no public information on the report's scope and date, on WORM or equivalent storage, on legal hold, or on a tax-audit data export. 2 5 6 7 9
The Skeptic
Dedicated GoBD and IDW PS 880 certification pages are published, archiving is claimed "completely audit-proof" when used correctly, compliance with retention periods is said to be provable, and privacy-policy deletion is reconciled with retention duties. But the captured pages name no auditor, date or scope for any Testat, describe no WORM or equivalent storage, and show no legal hold and no tax-audit export — the certificate remains a claim I cannot check. 2 5 7 9
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
Invoice processing from capture to posting in SAP is documented module by module — requisition, purchase orders, confirmations with line-item discrepancy handling, delivery capture, invoice posting — with rule-based approvals, web and mobile approval for users outside SAP, certified ArchiveLink, CMIS and RFC interfaces without middleware, 200+ integrations, event-driven ECA automation without programming and a library of pre-configured workflow apps. I found no public information on graphical workflow modelling as such, on DATEV handover, on e-signature integration, or on a public API reference with rate limits and a sandbox. 4 5 8 9 10
The Records Manager
The purchase-to-pay chain is documented end to end in SAP — rule-based requisition approvals, automatic purchase orders from approved requests, invoice capture through to posting over certified ArchiveLink, CMIS and RFC interfaces with no middleware — alongside more than 200 named integrations including Salesforce and Microsoft 365, no-programming event-condition-action automation, and a library of pre-configured, easily modified workflow apps. An API is referenced for AI agents, but we found no public information on a documented API reference with limits, webhooks, e-signature or DATEV handover, which caps this below the top band. 4 5 8 9 10
The IT Integrator
The SAP story has stated scope: certified ArchiveLink, CMIS and RFC interfaces with no middleware, an invoice module posting into SAP, rule-based and web/mobile approvals, and event-condition-action automation without programming, plus named Salesforce and Microsoft ties. For my stack the gaps matter: we found no public information on a DATEV connector, a documented API reference with webhooks, or e-signature integration, and the 200+ integrations figure and the Microsoft Dynamics connection come without stated scope. 4 5 8 9
The Mittelstand Owner
The purchase-to-pay workflow story is real: rule-based requisition approvals, web and mobile approvals for staff outside SAP, automated invoice posting in SAP with certified ArchiveLink, CMIS and RFC interfaces among 200-plus integrations, and event-condition-action automation without programming. SAP is clearly the deep path; I found no public information on a graphical workflow designer, on task deadlines and substitutes, on a documented API reference with sandbox, on e-signature, or on a DATEV connector. 4 5 8 9
The Data Protection Officer
Approvals, invoice processing and full purchase-to-pay run natively into SAP over certified ArchiveLink, CMIS and RFC interfaces without middleware, event-condition-action automation works without programming, and 200+ integrations including SAP, Microsoft Dynamics, Salesforce and Microsoft 365 are named. We found no public information on e-signature integration or DATEV connectors, and workflow modelling shows itself only through pre-configured, easily modified apps rather than a documented graphical designer. 4 5 8 9 10
The Skeptic
The purchase-to-pay story is concrete and specific: modules from requisition to invoice posting running natively in SAP over certified ArchiveLink, CMIS and RFC interfaces without middleware, event-condition-action automation without programming, a library of pre-configured workflow apps, and 200+ integrations including Salesforce and Microsoft Dynamics. Weighed down by what the pages do not show: no graphical workflow designer detail, no documented API reference, no DATEV handover and no e-signature integration. 5 8 9 10
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 broadly evidenced: keyword, full-text and combined search with filters by author, language, document type and processor, dynamic result lists, natural-language, vector and RAG search with answers linked to the original documents, permissions enforced in the results, a viewer for more than 300 formats, and a one-click import from file directories and SharePoint. Classified data exports to JSON, XML, CSV or PDF are documented, but I found no public information on exporting documents in original format together with versions and audit trail, on a self-service complete export, or on the post-termination retrieval window and data deletion. 4 5 10 11
The Records Manager
Search is strong: keyword, full-text and combined modes with filters by author, language, document type and processor, dynamic result lists, natural-language AI search with source-linked answers, and permissions enforced on every query; an import path from file directories and SharePoint is also named. On the exit side only classified data exports to JSON, XML, CSV or PDF are documented — we found no public information on exporting documents together with their versions and audit trail, on saved searches, or on the post-termination retrieval window, which is the part I care about most when a contract ends. 5 10 11
The IT Integrator
Search is well evidenced: keyword, full-text and metadata filters with dynamic result lists, vector and natural-language search with source links, and permissions enforced on every query, with file directories and SharePoint named as import sources. The exit is thin by comparison: export of classified data to JSON, XML, CSV or PDF is documented, but we found no public information on a complete export of documents with versions and audit trail in a documented structure, self-service export, or post-termination terms. 4 5 10 11
The Mittelstand Owner
Search is the strongest part: keyword and full-text with filters by author, language and document type, permissions respected on every query, natural-language answers with links back to the source documents, and a viewer for more than 300 formats without the original application. Taking my documents with me is the weak side — classified data exports to JSON, XML, CSV or PDF are documented, but we found no public information on exporting documents together with metadata, versions and audit trail, on self-service complete export, or on the post-termination retrieval window. 5 9 10 11
The Data Protection Officer
Keyword, full-text, metadata and vector search with filters and permission enforcement are documented in detail, AI answers are source-linked to the original documents, and documents can be imported from file directories in one click. We found no public information on saved searches, on bulk export of documents with their metadata, versions and audit trail in a documented structure, or on the post-termination retrieval window and data deletion, so the exit is undocumented. 5 10 11
The Skeptic
Search is strong: keyword, full-text and metadata search with filters and unified result lists, permission-respecting AI search with source-linked answers, plus a named import path — one-click transfer from file directories and federation from SharePoint, databases and servers. The exit is the weak half: export is presented as classified data in JSON, XML, CSV or PDF routed into your systems, and we found no public information on exporting documents with their versions and audit trail, a complete documented export structure, or any post-termination retrieval window. 4 5 10 11
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 company presents itself as Doxis GmbH of Bonn, and the privacy policy grants the full set of GDPR data subject rights with deletion once the purpose is fulfilled, but the evidence ends there. I found no public information on where documents and their metadata are stored in the cloud edition, on the hosting chain and subprocessor list, on where the AI that reads document content runs and with which model provider, or on ISO 27001 and BSI C5 certifications; ownership is noted only as private equity with no named controlling party. 2 3 11
The Records Manager
The vendor information points to a German operating company in Bonn, but every sovereignty attribute — contracting entity, ownership behind the private-equity-held house, data residency, subprocessors — is recorded as unknown, and the privacy policy capture says nothing about where documents are stored. We found no public information on the cloud edition's data centres, on any subprocessor list, or on which provider's AI reads the document content; an on-premises option and certifications such as ISO 27001 or BSI C5 also do not appear in the captures. 2 3
The IT Integrator
The legal notice names Doxis GmbH in Bonn, which points to an EU contracting entity. We found no public information on where the cloud edition stores documents and metadata, on the subprocessor list, on where AI processing of document content happens, or on the ownership behind the company, so it sits at the lower-middle level. 2 3
The Mittelstand Owner
The legal notice names Doxis GmbH in Bonn as the German contracting entity and the privacy policy is GDPR-based with deletion reconciled to retention duties. Beyond that I found no public information on the company's ownership, on where the cloud edition stores documents and metadata, on the subcontractor list, or on where the AI that reads my document content actually runs — which matters when the invoices land there. 2 3
The Data Protection Officer
The legal notice identifies Doxis GmbH in Bonn and the privacy policy grants the full catalogue of GDPR data subject rights, but the captured pages give no statement on where documents and metadata are stored, who owns the vendor, or who the subprocessors are. For a system that will hold personnel files, health certificates and customer contracts, we found no public information on where the cloud edition stores them or on which AI provider reads their content during capture and AI search. 2 3 4 11
The Skeptic
The vendor presents itself as Doxis GmbH of Bonn with a GDPR privacy policy, but we found no public information on where documents and metadata are stored in the cloud edition, who the subprocessors are, or who ultimately controls the private-equity-owned company. And while the product is "powered by the latest AI" that instantly analyzes your documents, no page states where that processing runs or who provides the models — an AI reading invoices under undisclosed ownership and hosting is not something to accept on trust. 1 2 3 4
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
The only price statement across the captured pages is that requesting a demo is free, aimed at organisations with 100+ users and international presence. I found no public prices of any kind — no edition or per-user prices, no module, storage or maintenance costs, no on-premises licensing, no contract term or notice period — so a buyer can compute no part of the cost from what is published. 9 10
The Records Manager
No prices appear anywhere in the captures — not per user, per edition, for storage, modules or maintenance — and the only cost statements are that a demo is quick, easy and free and that the newsletter is free. A buyer cannot compute the cost of any deployment from public pages alone; everything runs through a demo conversation. 9 10
The IT Integrator
The only cost statements we found are a free demo and a free newsletter. We found no public information on edition, module, storage, maintenance, implementation or on-premises licensing costs, so a buyer cannot compute any part of the total from public pages. 2 9 10
The Mittelstand Owner
Across all captured pages the only price statement is that a demo is free and without obligation; we found no public information on prices for users, storage, modules, maintenance, contract terms or the on-premises licence. A buyer like me cannot compute the cost of a given setup before a sales or partner conversation, and for a product positioned for 100-plus users that is exactly the number I need up front. 9 10
The Data Protection Officer
The only cost statements on the captured pages are that requesting a demo is free and the newsletter is free. We found no public information on edition, module, user, storage, maintenance or on-premises licence pricing, so a buyer cannot compute any part of the cost from public pages. 2 9 10
The Skeptic
We found no public price for any edition, module, user count, storage tier, maintenance term or contract length on the captured pages; the only cost figure published anywhere is a free demo. Every number that determines the real cost points back to a sales conversation, so a buyer can compute nothing in advance. 9 10
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 | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Doxis
Is Doxis European?
Yes. whats-best.ai classifies Doxis as EU-Made.
Where does Doxis store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Doxis have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Doxis?
As of 15 Oct 2026, the panel rates AMAGNO (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 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: Doxis 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.
- 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.
- We could not confirm any pricing information on the vendor’s own pages as captured, so this page shows none rather than a statement we cannot stand behind. Know more? Tell us
- 31 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
- 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 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
- 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
- 3 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 data 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
- 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 (11)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.doxis.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Privacy policy www.doxis.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Legal notice www.doxis.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Capture, OCR & indexing — found from sitemap www.doxis.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Capture, OCR & indexing — found from sitemap www.doxis.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Audit-proof archiving & retention — found from sitemap www.doxis.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Audit-proof archiving & retention — found from sitemap www.doxis.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Document workflows & integrations — found from sitemap www.doxis.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Document workflows & integrations — found from sitemap www.doxis.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Search, retrieval & exit — found from sitemap www.doxis.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Search, retrieval & exit — found from sitemap www.doxis.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →