whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Document Management (DMS)

Fabasoft Cloud

EU-Made Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: not determined

0–5 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

Fabasoft Cloud: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai Fabasoft Cloud: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai (dark)

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

Fabasoft Cloud alternatives, European ones first →

Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.

The Skeptic

Weighted verdict

Has read "revisionssicher" on every DMS homepage and a Testat on almost none. Distrusts "AI-powered capture" without a validation step, "seamless SAP integration" without a scope, and "no vendor lock-in" from a vendor that documents no export — and treats "price on request from your partner" as an answer.

Same scores as the panel view — this lens weights them the way this judge cares.

Scored by The Skeptic

Panel median The Skeptic This judge’s scores over the panel median. Each label opens its reasoning below.
Scores per criterion, in stars out of 5
Criterion Panel median The Skeptic
Capture, OCR & indexing 1 of 5 0.5 of 5
Versioning, permissions & audit trail 1 of 5 0.5 of 5
Audit-proof archiving & retention 2 of 5 1 of 5
Document workflows & integrations 3 of 5 2 of 5
Search, retrieval & exit 1.5 of 5 1 of 5
European sovereignty 2.5 of 5 2 of 5

Capture, OCR & indexing

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Versioning, permissions & audit trail

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Audit-proof archiving & retention

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Document workflows & integrations

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Search, retrieval & exit

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

European sovereignty

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Pricing transparency not rated — the vendor publishes no price

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

0 of 4 dimensions proven

Built only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.

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

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.

Do you know more about Fabasoft Cloud? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (7)

The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.

  1. 1 Vendor homepage www.fabasoft.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Privacy policy www.fabasoft.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Legal notice www.fabasoft.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Audit-proof archiving & retention — found from sitemap www.fabasoft.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Audit-proof archiving & retention — found from sitemap www.fabasoft.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Document workflows & integrations — found from sitemap www.fabasoft.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Document workflows & integrations — found from sitemap www.fabasoft.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →