Document Management (DMS)
LogicalDOC
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by LogicalDOC · www.logicaldoc.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.
LogicalDOC at a glance
- Vendor
- LogicalDOC
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates LogicalDOC 2/5, the mean of 6 judges. LogicalDOC is a document management system from LogicalDOC Srl of Carpi, Italy, deployable on-premise, in the cloud or hybrid. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 20 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 21 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
LogicalDOC is a document management system from LogicalDOC Srl of Carpi, Italy, deployable on-premise, in the cloud or hybrid. Its strongest ground is document workflows, which scores 6 with no spread: a drag-and-drop designer with parallel tasks, escalation, timeouts and import/export of models, backed by documented SOAP and REST APIs with open-source bindings. Capture and indexing and versioning and permissions rest on OCR with named engines and zonal field extraction, and on version control with logged check-in and check-out; search and portability sits flat at 4. The weakest ground is audit-proof archiving, spanning 2-4 on configurable retention policies alone, with no public information on immutability, WORM storage, GoBD or a Verfahrensdokumentation; sovereignty scores 2-3, with no public information on cloud storage locations, subprocessors or where the cloud OCR engine processes content, while the privacy policy names Standard Contractual Clauses and the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework for transfers out of the EU and EEA. The captured pages publish no price figure for any edition or module.
Speaks for it
- A drag-and-drop workflow designer with parallel tasks, escalation, timeout events and import/export of models, scored 6 with no spread.
- Documented SOAP and REST APIs with a WSDL endpoint and open-source bindings.
- OCR with named engines — Tesseract, an optional Power PDF licence and a cloud OCRWebService — plus zonal templates that extract fields into metadata.
- Version control with major and minor versions, logged check-in and check-out, accessible previous versions and single sign-on.
- On-premise, cloud and hybrid deployment across Windows, Linux and macOS.
Held against it
- Audit-proof archiving scores 2-4, resting on configurable retention policies with no public information on GoBD, immutability or WORM storage.
- Sovereignty scores 2-3, with no public information on cloud storage locations, subprocessors or where the cloud OCR engine processes document content.
- No public information on ERP, DATEV or Microsoft 365 connectors or e-signature; the named integrations are OnlyOffice, Google Drive, Google Calendar and Kofax.
- No public information on bulk export of documents with their metadata, versions and audit trail, or on a documented exit path.
- No public information on email or mailbox intake, on XRechnung or ZUGFeRD read as structured data, or on duplicate detection.
Best for
- You build document-centric processes in-house and want a workflow engine with documented APIs and open-source bindings.
- You digitize scanned archives and need configurable OCR with zonal field extraction straight into metadata.
- You want to host the system yourself, on-premise or hybrid, on Windows, Linux or macOS.
Avoid if
- You must evidence GoBD-conformant, tamper-evident archiving for a German tax audit.
- Your data protection review requires named hosting locations and a subprocessor list for the cloud edition before contract.
- You expect invoice approval to hand over directly to DATEV or an ERP system.
- You need a documented exit path with bulk export of documents, their metadata, versions and audit trail at contract end.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Capture, OCR & indexing | 2.5 of 5 |
| Versioning, permissions & audit trail | 2.5 of 5 |
| Audit-proof archiving & retention | 2 of 5 |
| Document workflows & integrations | 3 of 5 |
| Search, retrieval & exit | 2 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
Scan-flow automation, full-text OCR with selectable engines including Tesseract, Power PDF and a cloud-based OCR service, and zonal OCR that extracts defined fields into metadata via a web-based template designer are documented in real depth. We found no public information on email or mailbox intake, on XRechnung or ZUGFeRD being read as structured data rather than as pictures, or on duplicate detection and a validation step behind extraction — and where the cloud OCR engine processes document content is not stated. 3 4 11
The Records Manager
Full-text OCR with a choice of configurable engines, background processing and include/exclude rules is properly documented, and zonal OCR lifts fields from scans straight into metadata via templates in the web interface — metadata set at capture, which is what I want to see. Scan-flow automation is stated. We found no public information on email or mailbox intake, on XRechnung or ZUGFeRD being read as structured data, on duplicate detection, or on classification with a validation step. 3 4 11
The IT Integrator
OCR is more than a marketing line here: named engines (Tesseract, an optional Power PDF licence, a cloud OCRWebService), zonal OCR with admin-configured zone templates extracting fields as metadata, and configurable engines, languages, timeouts and include/exclude rules. But we found no public information on email or Microsoft 365 intake, on XRechnung or ZUGFeRD being read as structured data, on duplicate detection, or on where the cloud OCR engine processes document content. 3 4 11
The Mittelstand Owner
OCR is real and configurable — Tesseract or an optional commercial Power PDF engine, zonal templates with a web designer that pull fields from scans into metadata, and fully automatic background full-text indexing; invoice processing is even named as a use case. But I found no public information on email or mailbox intake, on XRechnung or ZUGFeRD being read as structured data rather than pictures, or on duplicate detection, which is exactly what my incoming e-invoices depend on. 3 4 6 11
The Data Protection Officer
Scanning automation, full-text OCR with configurable engines, languages, timeouts and background scheduling, and zonal OCR that extracts metadata fields through admin-configured zone templates are documented, with invoice and logistics field extraction named as use cases. We found no public information on email or mailbox intake, on XRechnung and ZUGFeRD being read as structured data, on duplicate detection, or on a validation step with confidence values. The optional cloud-based OCR engine is named without any statement of where it processes document content, which is exactly the gap I weigh when personnel files enter a capture pipeline. 3 4 11
The Skeptic
OCR is documented in working detail — Tesseract, an optional Power PDF engine, a cloud-based OCRWebService engine, background processing and include/exclude rules — and Zonal OCR with zone templates extracts specific fields into metadata; but we found no public information on email or Microsoft 365 intake, XRechnung or ZUGFeRD read as structured data, classification with a confidence score and a validation step, or duplicate detection. For a cloud OCR engine, we found no public information on where the processing runs. 1 3 4
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 control with minor and major versions on each check-in, previous versions accessible from the history, a viewable log of who made changes, logged check-in and check-out and single sign-on are documented, and workflows are described as recording who accessed or modified a document and when. We found no public information on permission granularity below the administrator level, on directory sync with Entra ID or LDAP, or on the retention period and tamper-evidence of the audit log. 5 6 8
The Records Manager
Version control creates and tracks a version on each modification with minor/major specification at check-in, previous versions stay accessible with a viewable log of who changed what, all check-in and check-out operations are logged, and workflows leave records of who accessed or modified a document and when, alongside single sign-on. We found no public information on restoring previous versions, on the permission model beyond folders (document-type or record-level rights, directory sync), on whether administrators' own actions are logged, or on log retention. 5 6 8
The IT Integrator
Version control with minor/major versions, check-in/check-out that is logged and tracked, a document history with accessible previous versions and a viewable log of who changed what, plus single sign-on are all documented. We found no public information on directory sync with Entra ID or LDAP, on metadata- or record-level permissions, or on whether exports and deletions appear in the audit trail; only the workflow page mentions records of who accessed or modified a document. 5 6 8
The Mittelstand Owner
Check-in and check-out, major and minor versions, a document history with a viewable log of who changed what, single sign-on and an administrator unlock are all documented — the basics my team would actually use. I found no public information on rights below folder or group level, on metadata-driven permissions, or on how long the audit log is kept. 5 6 8
The Data Protection Officer
Document version control that creates and tracks a new version on each modification, a history from which previous versions are accessible with a log of who made changes, check-in and check-out with major and minor versions and lock handling, logging of all check-in and check-out operations, and single sign-on are all documented. We found no public information on a permission model, whether folder-, record-level or metadata-driven, on directory sync, on an audit trail covering reads, exports and deletions, or on tamper-evidence of the log. For a repository holding personnel files and health certificates, that silence on access rights is the deciding gap. 5 6 8
The Skeptic
Check-in/check-out, major/minor versions, lock handling and a document history from which previous versions are accessible, including a viewable log of who made changes, are documented, and single sign-on is named; but we found no public information on role- or record-level permission models, on restore of older versions, or on any tamper-evidence, export or retention of the audit log. 5 6 8
Audit-proof archiving & retention
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
GoBD-compliant, revisionssicher archiving: immutability of archived documents, retention schedules and deletion, tax-audit data access, and the independent evidence behind the claim — scored on what is certified and documented, not on the word "GoBD-konform".
0 — No statement on archiving, retention or GoBD.
3 — "GoBD-konform" or "revisionssicher" claimed with no certificate, no description of how immutability is achieved and no retention settings documented.
5 — Archived documents documented as unchangeable, retention periods configurable per document type, deletion after expiry, and a sample Verfahrensdokumentation or GoBD guidance offered.
8 — An auditor's report (IDW PS 880 or comparable) published or named with its scope and date, WORM or equivalent storage described, legal hold, GDPR deletion reconciled with retention duties, and Z1–Z3 tax-audit export documented.
10 — Archiving is evidenced end to end: current Testat with scope covering the cloud and on-premises editions as sold, retention and deletion logged and reportable, long-term formats (PDF/A) enforced, and a documented procedure for the tax audit and for moving the archive without breaking its integrity.
The GoBD Auditor
Retention policies configurable per document type, with rules on different dates and actions, are documented, and on-premise, cloud and hybrid deployment is offered — that is everything an auditor can hold onto here. We found no public information on immutability or WORM storage of archived documents, on an auditor's report, a Verfahrensdokumentation sample, legal hold, or a Z1–Z3 export for the tax office, and the only retention periods we find sit in the privacy policy and concern the vendor's own sales and support records, not the customer's documents. 1 2 7
The Records Manager
Retention policies are configurable with different policies per document type and rules on dates that trigger actions — real lifecycle control. Beyond that, we found no public statement on immutability of archived documents, deletion after expiry, legal hold, WORM storage, PDF/A, tax-audit data access, or any certificate or auditor's report; the pages we have make no reference to GoBD or revisionssichere archiving at all. 7
The IT Integrator
Retention policies are real and configurable per document type, with rules on different dates and configurable actions, which is genuine lifecycle management. For audit-proof archiving in the German sense we found no public information on GoBD, on immutability of archived documents, on a Verfahrensdokumentation or an auditor's report, or on tax-audit export. 7
The Mittelstand Owner
Configurable retention policies per document type with date-based rules and actions are documented, and records handling is named as a capability — and there it stops. I found no public information on GoBD, revisionssicher storage, immutability of archived documents, a Verfahrensdokumentation or any auditor's report, so for a German tax audit I would be relying on a retention setting, not evidence. 1 7
The Data Protection Officer
Retention policies configurable per document type, with rules on different dates and different actions over the document life cycle, are documented. We found no public information on GoBD or revisionssichere archiving, on how archived documents are kept unchangeable, on WORM or equivalent storage, on a sample Verfahrensdokumentation, legal hold, tax-audit data access, or an auditor's report. Configurable retention is a real beginning; immutability and audit access are not on the record. 7
The Skeptic
Configurable retention policies per document type, with rules on dates and configurable actions, are the whole of the evidence here; we found no public information on GoBD, on how immutability of archived documents is achieved, on WORM storage, on any auditor's report or Testat, or on tax-audit data access. Retention settings alone do not make an archive revisionssicher. 7
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
A drag-and-drop workflow designer with parallel and sequential tasks, alternate users, escalation and timeout events, event-triggered execution, notification templates and import and export of workflow models is documented, backed by a workflow guide and rich SOAP and REST APIs with open-source bindings. For connectors to SAP, Microsoft Dynamics or DATEV, for invoice handover to an accounting system, and for e-signature we found no public information. 6 8 9
The Records Manager
A drag-and-drop graphical workflow designer with parallel and sequential tasks, alternate users per task with escalation, timeout events, event-triggered execution, import and export of workflow models, and a dedicated Workflow Guide — plus documented SOAP and REST APIs with a WSDL endpoint and open-source bindings. We found no public information on handover to ERP or DATEV, e-signature integration, webhooks to external systems, or process reporting with throughput times. 8 9 6
The IT Integrator
The workflow engine is solid: drag-and-drop modelling, event-triggered execution, transitions beyond yes/no, parallel tasks, alternate users with escalation and timeouts, a dedicated Workflow Guide, and a documented SOAP and REST API with WSDL endpoint and open-source bindings — exactly the kind of API surface I need. What I miss is stated-scope connectors into the business stack: we found no public information on ERP, DATEV or Microsoft 365 connectors, on webhooks, or on e-signature; the named integrations are Google Drive, Google Calendar, OnlyOffice and Kofax. 8 9 6
The Mittelstand Owner
The workflow engine reads as grown-up: a drag-and-drop designer, parallel or sequential tasks, alternate users with escalation, timeout events, event-triggered start, import and export of workflow models, and documented SOAP and REST APIs with open-source bindings. But I found no public information on a DATEV or ERP handover for invoice workflows, on e-signature, or on named connectors to accounting systems, so the bridge from approval to my bookkeeping is unproven. 1 6 8 9
The Data Protection Officer
A drag-and-drop graphical workflow designer with event-triggered execution, multiple transitions, parallel and sequential tasks, alternate users, escalation and timeout events, customizable notification templates, import and export of workflow models and a dedicated workflow guide are documented, together with SOAP and REST APIs, WSDL access and open-source bindings. We found no public information on ERP or DATEV handover for invoice workflows, Microsoft 365 or Outlook integration, webhooks, or e-signature; the named third-party ties are OnlyOffice, Google Drive, Google Calendar and Kofax. The workflow engine is well described; the accounting-side connectors a German buyer would need are not on the record. 6 8 9
The Skeptic
A drag-and-drop workflow designer with event-triggered execution, parallel tasks, alternate users, escalation and timeout handling is documented, as are SOAP and REST APIs with a WSDL endpoint and open-source bindings; we found no public information on invoice workflows handing over to ERP or DATEV, on connectors with a stated scope, or on e-signature — the named integrations are OnlyOffice, Google Drive and Google Calendar, not Microsoft 365 or an ERP. 8 9 6
Search, retrieval & exit
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Finding documents again and taking them with you: full-text and metadata search, saved searches and mobile access, and whether documents, metadata, versions and audit trail can be exported in documented formats when the contract ends.
0 — Folder browsing only; no export beyond downloading single files.
3 — Full-text search exists, but no metadata filters, and bulk export is undocumented or only on request.
5 — Full-text and metadata search with filters and saved searches, mobile or web access, and bulk export of documents with their metadata (for example CSV or XML) documented.
8 — Search across versions and attachments with permissions respected, export of documents in original format with metadata, versions and audit trail in a documented structure, and an import path from other DMS or file shares named.
10 — The exit is designed in: a documented complete export with schema, export available self-service at any time, the post-termination retrieval window and data deletion stated, and archives stored in open formats so a successor system can take them over intact.
The GoBD Auditor
Full-text indexing over file content and metadata, language-specific indexing and configurable search engine settings are documented, and mobile apps are distributed through four stores. We found no public information on saved searches or metadata filters, and — the part that decides this score for a system that may hold ten years of invoices — no public information on bulk export of documents with metadata, versions and audit trail, on an import path from other systems, or on any post-termination retrieval window. 2 6 11
The Records Manager
Full-text indexing of content and metadata is well documented, with configurable filters, asynchronous scheduling and mobile apps on four stores — decent findability. But we found no public information on saved searches or metadata filters, and, the part I care about most, no documentation of a bulk export that takes documents out together with their metadata, versions and audit trail; the GDPR portability right quoted covers personal data, not the archive, and the exit path is otherwise undocumented. 11 2
The IT Integrator
Full-text indexing over file content and metadata with language-aware filters, configurable scheduling and admin/users guides is well documented, and there are mobile apps and a sync feature. But we found no public information on saved searches, and — the part an integrator cares about most — none on bulk export of documents with their metadata, versions and audit trail, on an import path from another DMS or file share, or on a post-termination retrieval window. 11 2 6
The Mittelstand Owner
Full-text search over file content and metadata with language-aware indexing, a configurable search engine and mobile apps for the usual stores is documented. I found no public information on saved searches, on bulk export of documents together with their metadata and versions, or on any documented exit when the contract ends. 2 11
The Data Protection Officer
Full-text indexing of content and metadata with language-aware search, configurable index settings and filters, and both an administrators' and a users' guide are documented, and apps are distributed through the Apple App Store, Google Play, the Microsoft Store and Amazon. We found no public information on saved searches and filters, on bulk export of documents with their metadata, versions and audit trail, on an import path from other systems, or on an exit procedure and post-termination retrieval window. The portability language I did find concerns the vendor's own website processing, not a customer archive. 2 11
The Skeptic
Full-text indexing over file content and metadata, language-specific algorithms and configurable filters, plus apps in the Apple, Google, Microsoft and Amazon stores, are documented; we found no public information on saved searches, on bulk export of documents with their metadata and versions, or on any documented exit path when a contract ends — for a buyer, taking the archive out is undescribed. 11 2
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 contracting entity is LogicalDOC Srl of Carpi, Italy, and an on-premise edition exists next to the cloud, which is where the good news ends. We found no public information on where the cloud edition stores documents and metadata, on subprocessors, on certifications such as ISO 27001 or BSI C5, or on where the cloud-based OCR engine processes content, while the privacy policy itself acknowledges transfers out of the EU and EEA under safeguards including Standard Contractual Clauses. 1 2 4 9
The Records Manager
The vendor's own pages name LogicalDOC Srl in Carpi, Italy as the company and the GDPR controller, and on-premises deployment is offered. We found no public information on where the cloud edition stores documents and metadata, no subprocessor list, and no disclosure of where the cloud-based OCR engine processes content; the privacy policy only names contractual safeguards for transfers out of the EU or EEA. 2 9 4 1
The IT Integrator
An Italian company, LogicalDOC Srl of Carpi, is named as GDPR controller with an appointed DPO, support records are retained under Italian law, and on-premises, cloud and hybrid deployment are offered. But we found no public information on where the cloud edition stores documents and metadata, on ownership, or on subprocessors — and the OCR page offers a cloud-based engine whose processing location is undisclosed, while the privacy policy speaks of transfers out of the EU/EEA under standard contractual clauses. 1 2 4
The Mittelstand Owner
The contracting company is named — LogicalDOC Srl of Carpi, Italy, also stated as the data controller — and the privacy policy names safeguards for transfers out of the EU. But I found no public information on where the cloud edition stores documents and metadata, on the subprocessor list, or on where the cloud-based OCR engine processes my invoice texts, and offices are listed in the United States as well as Europe. 2 3 4
The Data Protection Officer
LogicalDOC Srl of Via Aldo Moro 3, 41012 Carpi, Italy is the named GDPR controller and contracting entity, a data protection officer is appointed, and an on-premises or hybrid deployment is offered. We found no public information on where the cloud edition stores documents and metadata, on a subprocessor list, or on where the cloud-based OCR engine processes document content; the privacy policy names Standard Contractual Clauses and the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework for transfers out of the EU. An EU contracting entity with an undisclosed hosting chain fits the low end of this criterion, and I cannot silently accept an unnamed chain for personnel files and customer contracts. 1 2 4
The Skeptic
LogicalDOC Srl of Carpi, Italy is the named controller and an on-premises deployment is offered; we found no public information on where the cloud edition stores or processes documents, on the subprocessors behind it, on the location of the cloud-based OCR engine that reads document content, or on ownership and certifications. The privacy policy contemplates transfers out of the EU and EEA under Standard Contractual Clauses and the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework, without naming where those transfers go. 1 2 4 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
We found no public information on any price — no per-user figure for any edition, no storage terms, no maintenance percentage, no on-premise licence terms, no implementation costs; only a free trial, a Community Edition and the accepted payment methods are described. A buyer cannot compute the cost of a single seat from the captured pages, and every real figure would have to come from a conversation with sales. 1 2 6
The Records Manager
We found no public prices at all — only a free trial, a Community Edition and the accepted payment methods (PayPal, Credit Card, Invoice, Debit Card) are documented. A buyer cannot compute the cost of a given number of users, storage or modules from public pages; everything would have to come from sales. 1 2 6
The IT Integrator
No price figures are captured at all — not even a 'from' price for a paid edition; what is public is a free trial, a Community Edition, an Enterprise edition described without figures, and payment methods for online purchase. We found no public information on per-user or per-month pricing, storage limits, module pricing, maintenance terms or on-premises licensing, so a buyer cannot compute a real-world cost from these pages. 1 2 6
The Mittelstand Owner
A Community edition, an Enterprise edition, a free trial and the payment methods are named, but I found no public prices of any kind — not per user, not for storage or modules, not for on-premises licences or maintenance. Before the partner visit I cannot even roughly compute what forty users would cost, which is precisely what I need on the table beforehand. 1 2 6
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public information on any price for the paid editions — no per-user rate, no edition comparison, no storage limits, no maintenance or onboarding terms; the only pricing-adjacent facts are the payment methods (PayPal, Credit Card, Invoice, Debit Card), a free trial and a Community Edition. A buyer cannot compute the cost of even one named user from the captured pages. 1 2 6
The Skeptic
The captured pages publish no price figure for any edition or module — only a free trial, a Community Edition and the accepted payment methods are named; we found no public information on per-user prices, storage limits, maintenance terms or on-premises licensing, so the real cost is computable by no one but the vendor's own sales channel. 1 2 6
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 LogicalDOC
Is LogicalDOC European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where LogicalDOC is based.
Where does LogicalDOC store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
Does LogicalDOC have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to LogicalDOC?
As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates PaperOffice (3/5), AMAGNO (3/5) and Doxis (3/5) highest among the other 17 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: LogicalDOC alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 20 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.
- 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
- 3 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
- 1 hosting 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
Sources (11)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.logicaldoc.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Privacy policy — found from the homepage www.logicaldoc.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Capture, OCR & indexing — found from sitemap www.logicaldoc.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Capture, OCR & indexing — found from sitemap www.logicaldoc.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Versioning, permissions & audit trail — found from sitemap www.logicaldoc.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Versioning, permissions & audit trail — found from sitemap www.logicaldoc.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Audit-proof archiving & retention — found from sitemap www.logicaldoc.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Document workflows & integrations — found from sitemap www.logicaldoc.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Document workflows & integrations — found from sitemap www.logicaldoc.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Search, retrieval & exit — found from sitemap www.logicaldoc.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Search, retrieval & exit — found from sitemap www.logicaldoc.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →