whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Document Management (DMS)

LogicalDOC

Provenance unknown 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 LogicalDOC · www.logicaldoc.com

Report an error on this page Is this your product? →

Link to this page

LogicalDOC: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai LogicalDOC: 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.

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

LogicalDOC alternatives, European ones first →

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

The Data Protection Officer

Weighted verdict

Knows the DMS ends up holding personnel files, health certificates and customer contracts in one place. Asks where the cloud edition stores them, which AI provider reads them during capture, who the subprocessors are, and how GDPR deletion is reconciled with retention duties.

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

Scored by The Data Protection Officer

Panel median The Data Protection Officer 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 Data Protection Officer
Capture, OCR & indexing 2.5 of 5 3 of 5
Versioning, permissions & audit trail 2.5 of 5 2.5 of 5
Audit-proof archiving & retention 2 of 5 2 of 5
Document workflows & integrations 3 of 5 3 of 5
Search, retrieval & exit 2 of 5 2 of 5
European sovereignty 1.5 of 5 1.5 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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 — 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

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 LogicalDOC? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (11)

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

  1. 1 Vendor page www.logicaldoc.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Privacy policy — found from the homepage www.logicaldoc.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Capture, OCR & indexing — found from sitemap www.logicaldoc.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Capture, OCR & indexing — found from sitemap www.logicaldoc.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Versioning, permissions & audit trail — found from sitemap www.logicaldoc.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Versioning, permissions & audit trail — found from sitemap www.logicaldoc.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Audit-proof archiving & retention — found from sitemap www.logicaldoc.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Document workflows & integrations — found from sitemap www.logicaldoc.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Document workflows & integrations — found from sitemap www.logicaldoc.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Search, retrieval & exit — found from sitemap www.logicaldoc.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  11. 11 Search, retrieval & exit — found from sitemap www.logicaldoc.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →