Document Management (DMS)
Fabasoft Cloud
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Fabasoft International Services GmbH · www.fabasoft.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.
Fabasoft Cloud at a glance
- Vendor
- Fabasoft International Services 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 Fabasoft Cloud 1.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Fabasoft Cloud is strongest on document workflows, which score 4 to 7: the captured pages name integrations — SAP ArchiveLink and S/4HANA Cloud via CMIS, SOAP and REST web services, Microsoft Office, Teams, WebDAV, OData and OpenAPI — alongside low-code/no-code customizing and a Fabasoft Approve product. 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
Fabasoft Cloud is strongest on document workflows, which score 4 to 7: the captured pages name integrations — SAP ArchiveLink and S/4HANA Cloud via CMIS, SOAP and REST web services, Microsoft Office, Teams, WebDAV, OData and OpenAPI — alongside low-code/no-code customizing and a Fabasoft Approve product. Weakest are capture and indexing and versioning and permissions, both at 1 to 2: beyond single sign-on via SAML 2.0 or OpenID Connect, we found no public information on scanning, email intake, OCR, version history, record-level rights or an audit log. On audit-proof archiving judges genuinely split from 2 to 6: some credited the dedicated IDW PS 880 certification pages, others weighed that no report scope or date appears and the privacy policy's retention figures — typically ten, at most thirty years — govern the vendor's own data. Sovereignty ran 3 to 6: stated storage on the vendor's own hardware in Germany, Austria and Switzerland set against unanswered questions on subprocessors and on where the Mindbreeze-based AI processes content. Pricing transparency scored 0 across the range; only a personal live demo on request is documented.
Speaks for it
- Integrations are named with stated scope: SAP ArchiveLink, S4-BTP-CMIS as the preferred route into S/4HANA Cloud, and SOAP and REST web services.
- Microsoft support runs from Word, Excel, PowerPoint and Outlook through Teams and Office Online co-editing, all documented.
- Single sign-on via SAML 2.0 or OpenID Connect with your own identity provider is documented, with AD FS named as an example.
- Standard interfaces — CMIS, OData, WebDAV, OpenAPI, OAuth2, CalDAV and CardDAV — are each described on the integration pages.
- The privacy policy states storage on the vendor's own hardware in data centres in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, with Public, Government, Private and Hyperscaler Cloud operating models.
Held against it
- We found no public information on scanning, email or mailbox intake, OCR, or XRechnung and ZUGFeRD invoices being read as structured data.
- We found no public information on version history, check-in and check-out, role- or record-level rights, or an audit log of reads and changes.
- We found no public information on the IDW PS 880 report's auditor, scope or date, and the footer's 'certified security' line names no certificate.
- We found no public information on a graphical workflow designer, approval tasks with deadlines and substitutes, a DATEV handover, e-signature or webhooks.
- We found no public information on a subprocessor list, on where the Mindbreeze-based AI processes content, or on a bulk export with metadata, versions and audit trail.
Best for
- You run SAP and want document management connected through ArchiveLink or S/4HANA Cloud CMIS with documented interfaces.
- Your team works in Microsoft 365 and wants to edit and manage documents inside Word, Outlook and Teams.
- Storage on the vendor's own hardware in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, as stated in the privacy policy, is a purchasing requirement.
- You build integrations yourself and want standard interfaces such as CMIS, OData and OpenAPI plus low-code/no-code customizing.
Avoid if
- You need capture documented in procurement — scanning, email intake, OCR, or XRechnung and ZUGFeRD arriving as structured data.
- You must demonstrate version history, record-level rights and an audit log of reads and changes before signing.
- You need a documented bulk export carrying documents out with metadata, versions and audit trail for the end of the contract.
- A subprocessor list and a stated processing location for the AI must be on the table before you commit.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Capture, OCR & indexing | 1 of 5 |
| Versioning, permissions & audit trail | 1 of 5 |
| Audit-proof archiving & retention | 2 of 5 |
| Document workflows & integrations | 3 of 5 |
| Search, retrieval & exit | 1.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 2.5 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
The captured pages document Microsoft Office, Teams and WebDAV access and an AI that "analysiert Ihre Inhalte im semantischen Kontext", but we found no public information on scanning or email intake, OCR, automatic classification with a validation step, or reading XRechnung and ZUGFeRD as structured data. How documents get in and become findable is left open on these pages. 1 7
The Records Manager
We found no public information on scanning, email intake, OCR, or whether electronic invoices in XRechnung or ZUGFeRD form are read as structured data rather than as pictures. A WebDAV integration that turns Windows Explorer into an interface for document management and an AI said to analyze content in semantic context are the nearest statements, and neither shows metadata or index terms being set at capture. For a filing plan, the part I most need is the part these pages do not show. 1 7
The IT Integrator
We found no public information on how documents get in: nothing on scanner, email or mailbox intake, OCR, document types with metadata fields, automatic field extraction, or XRechnung and ZUGFeRD being read as structured data. The only adjacent evidence is a marketing-level claim that an AI analyses content in semantic context and recognises relationships. 1
The Mittelstand Owner
The only capture-adjacent statement is marketing copy about AI analysing content in its semantic context and recognising relationships; we found no public information on scanning, email intake, OCR, classification with field extraction, or whether XRechnung and ZUGFeRD e-invoices arrive as structured data — exactly what I need to get invoices into the system without typing. 1
The Data Protection Officer
How documents enter the system is essentially undocumented: we found no public information on scanning or email intake, OCR, classification, metadata extraction, or how XRechnung and ZUGFeRD invoices are read. Editing via Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint and Outlook and a WebDAV connection turning Windows Explorer into a document interface are the only intake-adjacent evidence captured. 6 7
The Skeptic
The homepage promises AI that "Ihre Inhalte im semantischen Kontext" analyses — which is analysis, not intake. We found no public information on scanning, email or mailbox intake, OCR, document types with metadata fields, duplicate detection, or XRechnung and ZUGFeRD being read as structured data, and no word on any validation step or where the AI processing runs. 1 7
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
Single sign-on via SAML 2.0 or OpenID Connect and OAuth2 are documented, which covers identity but not documents. For everything that decides a GoBD question — version history and restore, check-in and check-out, role- or metadata-driven rights, and an audit log of who read or changed what — we found no public information. 6 7
The Records Manager
Single sign-on via SAML 2.0 or OpenID Connect with your own identity provider is documented, as is OAuth2. Beyond that we found no public information on version history with restore, check-in and check-out, rights at document or record level, or an audit log of reads and changes. When a contract from 2019 has to be produced with its history, this evidence gives me nothing to hold on to. 6 7
The IT Integrator
Single sign-on via SAML 2.0 or OpenID Connect with the customer's own identity provider (AD FS is named as an example) is properly documented, which is the one solid point. Beyond that we found no public information on version history, check-in and check-out, role- or record-level rights, or an audit log of reads and changes. 6 7
The Mittelstand Owner
Single sign-on via SAML 2.0 or OpenID Connect with our own identity provider is documented, but we found no public information on version history, check-in and check-out, role- or record-level rights, or an audit log showing who read and changed which document. 6 7
The Data Protection Officer
Single sign-on through the customer's own identity provider via SAML 2.0 or OpenID Connect, plus OAuth2, is documented, but we found no public information on version history, check-in and check-out, role- or record-level rights, or any audit log of who read or changed a document. For a system holding personnel files and health certificates in one place, that silence on need-to-know access and traceability weighs heavily. 6 7
The Skeptic
Single sign-on via SAML 2.0 or OpenID Connect, right down to an AD FS example, is the one concrete fact in this area, and operating models from public to private cloud are listed. We found no public information on version history, check-in and check-out, role- or record-level rights, or any audit log of who read or changed what. 6 7
Audit-proof archiving & retention
panel disagrees
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's certifications area carries dedicated German and English pages named for the IDW PS 880 standard, which is more than a homepage slogan. But the captured material shows no Testat with its scope and date, no description of how archived documents are made unchangeable, no retention periods configurable per document type, and no Z1–Z3 data-carrier export; the ten- and thirty-year figures in the privacy statement concern Fabasoft's own data handling, not customer retention schedules. 4 5 2
The Records Manager
Among the captured pages there is a certification page for IDW PS 880 and the homepage points to certified security, but no scope or date of the auditor's report is documented, nor immutability of archived documents, configurable retention schedules or WORM storage. The retention statements I can find sit in the privacy policy and govern the vendor's own data, typically ten years. The certificate's existence is visible; its substance is not. 4 5 1 2
The IT Integrator
The vendor's sitemap carries dedicated German and English pages for an IDW PS 880 certification and the homepage points to certified security, but we found no public information on the report's scope or date, how immutability is achieved, retention periods configurable per document type, or a Z1–Z3 tax-audit export. The privacy policy's statement of typically ten and at most thirty years concerns Fabasoft's own business records rather than customer retention schedules. 4 5 1 2
The Mittelstand Owner
Dedicated IDW PS 880 certification pages exist in German and English, which is more than a bare compliance slogan, and the footer points to certified security; we found no public information on the report's scope and date, on how immutability of archived documents is achieved, on legal hold or on the Z1–Z3 tax-audit export, so I would not walk into a Betriebsprüfung on this alone. 1 4 5
The Data Protection Officer
The captured material points to certification pages on IDW PS 880 and a footer reference to certified security, but no details of the report's scope or date, of how immutability is achieved, of retention settings per document type, or of tax-audit data access were captured. The only retention figures appear in the privacy policy — business data typically ten, at most thirty years — which concerns the vendor's own data handling, and we found no public information reconciling GDPR deletion with those retention duties. 1 2 4 5
The Skeptic
Dedicated IDW PS 880 pages exist in the site's structure, yet we found no public information on the auditor, the scope or the date of any such report, and the footer line "Vertrauen ist gut. Zertifizierte Sicherheit ist besser." names no certificate at all. The retention figures we do have — typically 10 years, up to 30 — are privacy-policy terms for personal data, not evidence that archived documents are immutable or that retention is configurable per document type. 4 5 1 2
Document workflows & integrations
panel disagrees
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
A broad, documented integration base — SAP ArchiveLink and S/4HANA Cloud via CMIS, SOAP and REST web services, Microsoft Office, Teams and Office Online co-editing, WebDAV, OData and OpenAPI — plus low-code/no-code customizing and named solutions for document, quality and contract processes. We found no public information on a graphical workflow designer with tasks, deadlines and substitutes, on a DATEV or accounting handover, or on webhooks and e-signature. 1 6 7
The Records Manager
The integration picture is solid: Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook and Teams plus Office Online co-editing, SAP via ArchiveLink and S/4HANA Cloud CMIS with SOAP and REST web services, standard interfaces including OpenAPI, CMIS, OData and WebDAV, low-code and no-code customizing, and an Approve solution for document and quality processes. What we found no public information on: workflow tasks with deadlines and substitutes, an invoice workflow with handover to DATEV or accounting, webhooks or events, and electronic signature. That breadth of named connectors earns the middle ground; the missing process detail keeps it there. 6 7 1
The IT Integrator
The integration pages are more than a logo wall: SAP is covered with stated scope (ArchiveLink described as a proven integration, S4-BTP-CMIS named the preferred route for connecting a document management system in SAP S/4HANA Cloud, plus SOAP and RESTful web services), Microsoft 365 runs from Word and Outlook to Teams with online co-editing, and CMIS, OData, OpenAPI, WebDAV, CalDAV, CardDAV and OAuth2 are each described. As an integrator I still come up short: we found no public information on webhooks or events, a DATEV or Microsoft Dynamics connector, e-signature integration, or a workflow designer with tasks, deadlines and substitutes — Fabasoft Approve and low-code customizing are named but not shown at that level of detail. 6 7 1
The Mittelstand Owner
Named connectors are well covered — Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook and Teams, Office Online co-editing, WebDAV, and SAP via ArchiveLink, S/4HANA Cloud CMIS and SOAP/REST web services — plus low-code/no-code customizing and an OpenAPI basis for interfaces; we found no public information on a graphical workflow designer, a DATEV handover, e-signature or a documented invoice approval workflow, so I cannot confirm the approvals I want actually ship without a consultant. 1 6 7
The Data Protection Officer
Integration breadth is real and documented: SAP ArchiveLink and S/4HANA Cloud via CMIS, SOAP and REST web services, interfaces built on the OpenAPI specification, deep Microsoft Office, Teams and Office Online support, and low-code/no-code customizing. What happens to a document after arrival is thinner: we found no public information on a graphical workflow designer, on approval or invoice workflows with tasks, deadlines and substitutes, or on DATEV and e-signature connections. 1 6 7
The Skeptic
The integrations pages are unusually concrete — SAP ArchiveLink, the preferred CMIS path into SAP S/4HANA Cloud, SOAP and REST web services, Microsoft Office and Teams, WebDAV, OData and OpenAPI — and low-code/no-code customizing plus an approval product for document and quality processes are offered. But we found no public information on a graphical workflow designer, approval tasks with deadlines and substitutes, a DATEV or e-signature handover, or an actual API reference; "Bewährte Integration mit ArchiveLink" states a fact without a scope. 1 6 7
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
CMIS, OData, WebDAV and OpenAPI are documented standard interfaces through which documents and structured data can be reached by machine. But we found no public information on full-text or metadata search with filters and saved searches, on bulk export of documents together with their metadata, versions and audit trail, or on the retrieval window and procedure when a contract ends. 7 1
The Records Manager
The AI is said to analyze content in semantic context and recognize relationships, and CMIS promises standardized access to data, but we found no public information on full-text and metadata search with filters, saved searches, or a bulk export that carries documents out with their metadata, versions and audit trail. As the one who must hand over an archive intact at contract end, I see no documented exit here. 1 7
The IT Integrator
Semantic AI content analysis is claimed, and the standards-based interfaces (CMIS, OData, WebDAV) would in principle let a successor system read content out without the vendor's help. But we found no public information on full-text and metadata search with filters, saved searches, mobile access, an import path from another DMS or file share, or a documented bulk export including metadata, versions and the audit trail. 1 7
The Mittelstand Owner
AI analysing content in semantic context and standardised access via CMIS, OData and WebDAV suggest documents can be found and machine-read; we found no public information on metadata search with filters, saved searches, or a documented bulk export of documents with metadata, versions and audit trail for the day the contract ends. 1 7
The Data Protection Officer
The AI is described as analysing content in semantic context and recognising relationships, and standard access routes exist through CMIS, OData and WebDAV, but we found no public information on full-text or metadata search with filters and saved searches, on mobile access, or on any documented export of documents together with their metadata, versions and audit trail when a contract ends. For a buyer planning an exit, nothing captured describes the formats or the structure such an export would take. 1 7
The Skeptic
Semantic AI analysis is claimed and CMIS, OData and WebDAV provide standardised access, but that is retrieval plumbing, not an exit: we found no public information on full-text and metadata search with saved searches, and none on a bulk export of documents with metadata, versions and audit trail when the contract ends. The privacy policy grants a right to data portability, which is a right, not a documented procedure. 1 2 7
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 privacy policy states storage "auf eigener Hardware" in data centres in Germany, Austria and Switzerland with EU standard contractual clauses for third-country cases, and operating models run from public to hyperscaler cloud. But we found no public information on the subprocessors, the location of the Mindbreeze AI processing that reads document content, or published certifications with their scope, and the contracting entity's jurisdiction and ownership were not confirmed on the vendor's own captured pages. 2 7 1
The Records Manager
Documents are said to be stored on the vendor's own hardware in data centres in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, the privacy contact sits in Linz, standard contractual clauses cover third-country transfers, and public, government, private or hyperscaler cloud are offered as operating models. But the contracting entity and its ownership are not confirmed in the captured vendor pages, no subprocessor list with locations is published, and we found no statement of where the AI that reads document content — the Mindbreeze combination — actually runs. Solid European storage claims, thin documentation of the chain behind them. 2 7 1
The IT Integrator
The privacy policy states that Fabasoft stores data on its own hardware in data centres in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, and public, government, private and hyperscaler-cloud operating models are offered — a genuinely strong residency story. The picture is incomplete though: we found no published subprocessor list with locations and no disclosure of where the Mindbreeze-based AI processes document content, while the privacy policy itself relies on EU standard contractual clauses for third-country transfers in individual cases. 2 7 1
The Mittelstand Owner
The privacy policy states data is stored on Fabasoft's own hardware in data centres in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, third-country transfers are safeguarded with EU standard contractual clauses, and private or government cloud operating models are on offer; we found no public information on a subprocessor list with locations or on where the AI that reads document content actually runs, and the captured pages do not confirm the contracting entity or its ownership. 1 2 7
The Data Protection Officer
Storage is the strong part: data is stated to be kept on the vendor's own hardware in highly secure data centres in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, with public, government, private and hyperscaler cloud operating models and a privacy contact in Linz. But my core questions go unanswered — we found no public information on the subprocessor list with locations, on where the AI built on Mindbreeze reads document content, or on named ISO 27001 or BSI C5 certifications — and transfers to third countries are covered only by EU standard contractual clauses after case-by-case review. 1 2 7
The Skeptic
The privacy policy states storage on the vendor's own hardware in data centres in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, names EU standard contractual clauses as the transfer safeguard, and an Austrian privacy contact is published — with public, government, private and hyperscaler cloud as operating models. But we found no public information on a subprocessor list, on where the Mindbreeze AI that reads content processes it, or on any certification by name, and the contracting entity itself is not confirmed on the vendor's own captured pages. 1 2 7
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 captured pages list four operating models and offer a personal live demo on request, but we found no public information on any price — per user, per edition, storage, modules or maintenance. A buyer cannot compute a cost from these pages before talking to sales. 1 7
The Records Manager
No price appears anywhere in the captured pages — not for editions, users, storage, modules, maintenance or the deployment models. The only commercial step documented is a personal live demo on request. From these pages a buyer cannot compute any part of the cost. 1
The IT Integrator
We found no public price information at all: no edition prices, per-user rates, storage or module pricing, maintenance terms, or contract conditions. The only offer visible is a personal live demo on request, so a buyer cannot compute any part of the cost from public pages. 1
The Mittelstand Owner
We found no public information on prices at all — not per user, not per edition, not for storage, modules or maintenance; the only documented step toward a quote is a personal live demo on request, so the real cost stays unknown until a partner or sales call, which is precisely what I wanted to avoid. 1
The Data Protection Officer
No price appears anywhere in the captured material — nothing for editions, users, storage, modules, maintenance or the private-cloud operating model — and the only commercial touchpoint is a personal live demo offered on request. A buyer can compute no part of the cost from public pages alone. 1
The Skeptic
Everything funnels to a "persönliche Live-Demo" on request; we found no public information on edition or module prices, per-user costs, storage limits, maintenance terms, or contract periods and notice. Price on request is an answer — this is that answer. 1
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 ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Fabasoft Cloud
Is Fabasoft Cloud European?
Yes. whats-best.ai classifies Fabasoft Cloud as EU-Made.
Where does Fabasoft Cloud store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Fabasoft Cloud have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Fabasoft Cloud?
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: Fabasoft Cloud 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 — Ownership, 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.
- We found no public information on pricing on the pages we read (fabasoft.com/de, fabasoft.com/de/datenschutzerklaerung, fabasoft.com/de/impressum, fabasoft.com/en/certifications/idw-ps-880, fabasoft.com/de/zertifizierungen/idw-ps-880, fabasoft.com/en/fabasphere/fabasoft-cloud/integrations-and-interfaces and 1 more). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- 13 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 legal facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 compliance fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 product fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (7)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.fabasoft.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Privacy policy www.fabasoft.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Legal notice www.fabasoft.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Audit-proof archiving & retention — found from sitemap www.fabasoft.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Audit-proof archiving & retention — found from sitemap www.fabasoft.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Document workflows & integrations — found from sitemap www.fabasoft.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Document workflows & integrations — found from sitemap www.fabasoft.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →