Document Management (DMS)
M-Files
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by M-Files Corporation · www.m-files.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.
M-Files at a glance
- Vendor
- M-Files Corporation
- 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 M-Files 2/5, the mean of 6 judges. 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.
No written verdict for this product
The panel scored M-Files, but the summary our synthesizer wrote did not survive our own contradiction check — twice. Rather than print a paragraph we cannot stand behind, we print none. Every score, rationale and source below is unaffected; read them and draw the conclusion yourself.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Capture, OCR & indexing | 2 of 5 |
| Versioning, permissions & audit trail | 2.5 of 5 |
| Audit-proof archiving & retention | 1 of 5 |
| Document workflows & integrations | 3.5 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
Scanner and drag-and-drop import with conversion to searchable PDF is documented once OCR licensing conditions are met, an Outlook add-on archives emails and attachments with metadata, and the metadata-driven architecture classifies documents automatically. We found no public information on automatic extraction of common fields such as date, sender and amount, on reading XRechnung or ZUGFeRD as structured data, or on a validation step or duplicate detection. 1 2 6
The Records Manager
Scanner and drag-and-drop TIFFs are converted to searchable PDFs through the OCR module, Outlook Pro archives emails and attachments with metadata automatically, and the metadata-driven architecture classifies documents on arrival — setting metadata at capture is exactly what I want, and that much is visible. We found no public information on automatic extraction of common fields, e-invoice formats such as XRechnung and ZUGFeRD, duplicate detection, or where the Aino AI processing runs. 1 2 6 7
The IT Integrator
Scanner import and drag-and-drop with conversion to searchable PDF are documented, though the capture help states the conversion only occurs when an OCR license and OCR Module conditions are met, and the Outlook Pro add-on archives emails and attachments with metadata. The metadata-driven architecture is described as classifying documents automatically. We found no public information on automatic extraction of common fields such as date, sender or amount, on XRechnung or ZUGFeRD intake, or on duplicate detection. 1 2 6 7
The Mittelstand Owner
Scanning and drag-and-drop with OCR into a searchable PDF is documented, and the Outlook add-on archives mail and attachments automatically, but the OCR depends on a separate module licence and no automatic extraction of invoice fields is shown. For me the deal-breaker: I found no public information on XRechnung or ZUGFeRD being read as structured data, only a general claim that documents are classified automatically. 1 2 6 7
The Data Protection Officer
Scanner and drag-and-drop capture with conversion to searchable PDF is documented, though only when OCR licence conditions are met, and the Outlook add-on archives mail with metadata; classification is claimed via the metadata-driven architecture. We found no public information on field extraction with a validation step, on reading of XRechnung or ZUGFeRD as structured data, on duplicate detection, or on where the Aino AI processes document content. 1 2 6 7
The Skeptic
OCR is real but conditional: a TIFF from scanner or drag-and-drop becomes a searchable PDF only when an OCR licence and the OCR module's conditions are met, and searchable conversion inside a workflow needs a hand-written state script. Email intake arrives as a paid Outlook Pro add-on and classification is claimed via the metadata-driven architecture, but we found no public information on automatic extraction of fields like date, sender or amount, on confidence levels or a validation step, on duplicate detection, or on XRechnung and ZUGFeRD being read as structured data. 1 2 6 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
Check-out locks for editing and an Event Log of changes and modifications to the vault are documented, with both editions carrying version control and Enterprise adding advanced version control, an extended audit log with exports, and federated authentication. We found no public information on whether the trail records reads, exports and deletions, on tamper-evidence of the log, on named directory sync, or on how long log data is kept. 2 8 9
The Records Manager
Check-out locking, version control and an event log of vault changes are documented, and modifications to workflows are trackable by administrators in the console. We found no public information on restoring earlier versions, on permission rules at document or record level, or on an audit trail covering reads and exports — the extended audit log with exports is named as an enterprise-plan feature without its scope described. 2 8 9 10
The IT Integrator
Check-out locking is documented, Event Logs record changes and modifications to the vault, and both plans name version control, access controls and auditability, with an extended audit log with exports and federated authentication reserved for the Enterprise plan. We found no public information on metadata-driven or record-level permission models, directory synchronisation with Entra ID or LDAP, or an audit trail covering reads and exports. 2 8 9
The Mittelstand Owner
Check-out for editing and an event log of vault changes are documented, and both plans list version control, auditability and access controls. I found no public information on restoring earlier versions, on logging of reads or exports, or on single sign-on and directory specifics; the extended audit log with exports is reserved for the Enterprise plan. 2 8 9
The Data Protection Officer
Check-out for editing, version control in both plans and an event log of changes and modifications to the vault are documented, with an extended exportable audit log and federated authentication reserved for the Enterprise plan. We found no public information on metadata-driven permissions, on logging of reads, exports and deletions, on field-level rights, or on the retention period of the log. 2 8 9
The Skeptic
Check-out locking and an event log of vault changes are documented in the support pages, and both editions list version control, access controls and auditability. But the audit trail is described for changes to the vault and workflows only, the extended audit log with exports sits in the Enterprise plan, and we found no public information on restoring earlier versions, metadata-driven permission schemes, directory sync, or whether reads, exports and deletions are logged. 2 8 9
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
Governance for compliance and retention policies is claimed and marking objects for archiving is restricted to administrators with full control of the vault, but we found no public information on how immutability of archived documents is technically achieved, on retention periods per document type, on an auditor's report or certificate, or on a Z1–Z3 export for a tax audit. PDF/A appears only in a support article about signature validity, not as an enforced long-term format. 1 2 10 11
The Records Manager
What the pages show is compliance-with-retention-policies language, an archiving marker restricted to full-control administrators, and PDF/A conversion appearing in a support fix note. We found no public information on GoBD, on any auditor's report or certificate, on how immutability of archived documents is achieved, on retention periods configurable per document type, or on tax-audit data access. 1 10 11
The IT Integrator
The captured pages speak of integrated governance ensuring compliance with retention policies, an archiving marker that requires full control of the vault, and PDF/A conversion (with a long-term-validation signature issue corrected in a 2021 update). We found no public information on GoBD or revisionssicher claims, an auditor's report, how immutability of archived documents is achieved, retention period configuration per document type, or tax-audit data access. 1 10 11
The Mittelstand Owner
Retention policies are mentioned as integrated governance, objects can be marked for archiving with full-control rights, and PDF/A conversion appears — that is the whole story. I found no public information on GoBD, an auditor's report, WORM storage or configurable retention periods per document type; come a tax audit I would have nothing on paper to show. 1 10 11
The Data Protection Officer
Compliance with retention policies, an archiving marker restricted to administrators with full control of the vault, and PDF/A conversion appear in the documentation. We found no public information on a GoBD statement or certificate, an auditor's report, how immutability of archived documents is achieved, deletion after expiry, or how GDPR deletion is reconciled with retention duties — the reconciliation question I care most about goes unanswered on the captured pages. 1 2 10 11
The Skeptic
Compliance with retention policies is asserted on the homepage and PDF/A conversion exists, but "archiving" in the support pages means setting an archive marker with full-control administrative rights, and the captured pages are silent on how immutability of archived documents is achieved. We found no public information on a Testat or auditor's report, WORM storage, retention periods configurable per document type with deletion after expiry, or tax-audit data access — and no GoBD statement at all, which is thin for a homepage courting tax advisors. 1 10 11
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
Automated graphical workflows sit in both editions and Enterprise adds no-code document automation, a documented API exposes approval assignments and signature settings, and connectors for SAP, Salesforce, Microsoft Dynamics and Microsoft 365 plus an Adobe Acrobat Sign package are named. We found no public information on an invoice workflow handing over to DATEV or accounting, on webhooks or events, or on process reporting with throughput times. 1 2 12 13
The Records Manager
Graphical workflow automation and approval assignments are documented for both plans, connectors to SAP, Microsoft Dynamics and Salesforce are described with their scope, an Adobe Acrobat Sign e-signature package is included, and a public API reference exists alongside native Microsoft 365 integration. We found no public information on DATEV handover, on webhooks or events, or on process reporting with throughput times. 1 2 12 13
The IT Integrator
Both plans include automated graphical workflows, the API reference documents approval assignments with signature settings, and the connector list is broad and partly scoped — SAP data object import and use as an SAP content repository, Microsoft Dynamics CRM, Salesforce, OpenText and Documentum, plus an Adobe Acrobat Sign package without a separate Adobe service contract and native Microsoft 365. As the one who wires DMS to ERP and DATEV, I note we found no public information on a DATEV connector, an invoice workflow with ERP or accounting handover, or webhooks, and the published API reference covers COM-style classes without REST, rate-limit or sandbox statements. 1 2 12 13
The Mittelstand Owner
Graphical workflow automation and approval assignments are on board, with named connectors to SAP and Microsoft Dynamics, native Microsoft 365 and an e-signature package for Adobe Sign — that covers most of my stack. But no DATEV handover for my invoices is documented, and I found no public information on webhooks or events; the documented API is the COM reference. 2 12 13
The Data Protection Officer
Graphical no-code workflows ship in both plans, approval assignments and an e-signature package using Adobe Acrobat Sign are documented, and connectors for SAP, Microsoft Dynamics and Salesforce are described with their scope. We found no public information on DATEV handover, webhooks or events, or a public REST API reference with rate limits and a sandbox. 1 2 12 13
The Skeptic
Graphical workflow automation ships in both editions and the API is publicly documented down to approval-assignment properties, with e-signature via an included Adobe package and an SAP integration whose scope — content repository plus importing vendor and product objects — is actually stated rather than waved at. What keeps it down: we found no public information on invoice workflows handing over to DATEV or an accounting system, or on webhooks and events, and the documented interface is the COM reference rather than a named REST API. 1 2 12 13
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
Executed searches can be saved as views and OCR conversion yields searchable PDFs, while a reporting add-on sends metadata and vault data to a separate database for external tools. We found no public information on bulk export of documents with metadata, versions and audit trail in a documented structure, on mobile access, or on a post-termination retrieval window; the Smart Migration tool described addresses M-Files server versions rather than export to a successor system. 2 6 14 15
The Records Manager
Executed searches can be saved as reusable views and renamed, and a Smart Migration tool is offered for moving content between versions. We found no public information on full-text and metadata filtering, on mobile access, or on a documented bulk export that keeps documents, metadata, versions and audit trail together — that last gap is the one that costs money when a contract ends. 1 14 15
The IT Integrator
Searches can be saved as views and renamed, and OCR-produced searchable PDFs give full text; a Smart Migration app and a Reporting Databases add-on that sends metadata and vault data to a separate database exist. The migration evidence concerns moves between M-Files server versions, and we found no public information on a documented bulk export of documents with metadata, versions and audit trail, an import path from other DMS or file shares, or post-termination retrieval terms. 2 6 14 15
The Mittelstand Owner
Searches can be saved as views and renamed, and the metadata approach promises findable documents; the Reporting Databases add-on at least sends vault data to a separate database. I found no public information on mobile access, on a bulk export of documents with metadata in a documented format, or on what an exit at contract end would actually deliver. 1 2 14
The Data Protection Officer
Executed searches can be saved as views and renamed, and OCR makes scanned documents full-text searchable, so retrieval looks solid. We found no public information on bulk export of documents with metadata, versions and audit trail or on a documented exit path — the Smart Migration tool we found covers only moves between the vendor's own server versions, and nothing states a post-termination retrieval window or data deletion. 6 14 15
The Skeptic
Searches can be saved and turned into reusable, renamable views, and the searchable-PDF conversion implies full text, so finding things back is half-documented. The exit side is not: the only export mentioned anywhere in the captures is the extended audit log, and that is Enterprise-only, while Smart Migration moves M-Files to a newer M-Files server rather than to a successor system — we found no public information on bulk export of documents with metadata and versions, or on any post-termination retrieval window. 2 14 15
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 vendor is presented as a Finnish company (Espoo) and an on-premises deployment is offered, but the Premium Cloud is built on Microsoft Azure with no stated safeguard, and a data-residency add-on only places content in the customer's own Microsoft 365 environment. We found no public information on where documents and metadata are stored, on the subprocessor list, or on where the built-in Aino AI processes document content. 2 5
The Records Manager
The vendor is based in Espoo, Finland, but the captured pages place Premium Cloud in Microsoft Azure and sell data residency as a separate add-on without naming any locations. We found no public information on subprocessors and their locations, on where the built-in Aino AI processes document content, or on ownership control following the private-equity backing. 2 5
The IT Integrator
The company is listed with Finnish provenance, but the captured pages do not confirm the contracting entity, ownership or data residency; the Premium Cloud add-on runs as a dedicated single-tenant environment in Microsoft Azure, a Data Residency Requirements add-on lets content be stored in the customer's Microsoft 365 environment, and an on-premises option is offered. We found no public information on a subprocessor list, on where the Aino AI processes document content, or on certifications such as ISO 27001 or BSI C5. 1 2 5
The Mittelstand Owner
The captured pages show the cloud running in Microsoft Azure and a Data Residency add-on that can keep content in the customer's own Microsoft 365 environment, but no processing locations, no subprocessor list and no certifications appear on them — the sovereignty attributes come back unknown across the board. The provenance names a Finnish company, which reads as European, yet nothing captured confirms where my invoices and their metadata would actually sit. 2 5
The Data Protection Officer
The vendor is a Finnish company offering on-premises operation, but the premium cloud is described only as a dedicated single-tenant environment in Microsoft Azure, and we found no public information on which region holds documents and metadata. We also found no public information on the subprocessor list, on which provider processes content for the Aino AI, or on published ISO 27001 or BSI C5 certifications, and private-equity ownership is noted without control being verified — for personnel files and health certificates that gap is decisive. 2 5
The Skeptic
Everything this criterion needs goes unanswered in the captured pages: no contracting-entity jurisdiction, no data-centre locations, no subprocessor list, and no named certification on the trust center. The cloud runs on Microsoft Azure — Premium Cloud is "a dedicated, single-tenant environment in Microsoft Azure" — with no region or safeguard stated; an on-premises option and a Data Residency add-on exist, but they are options, not an evidenced chain. 2 5
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 editions page names two plans with a capability matrix and named add-ons such as Premium Cloud, Outlook Pro and additional storage, but we found no public price figures — not even a 'from' price — and no storage limits, maintenance terms or contract notice period. A buyer cannot compute the cost of a given number of users from the public pages. 2
The Records Manager
The editions page names two plans and a long list of add-ons — Premium Cloud, Outlook Pro, additional storage, reporting, data residency — but no price figure for any of them appears on the captured pages. We found no public information on per-user prices, storage limits and overage, maintenance, or contract term and notice period, so a buyer cannot compute a total cost from public pages alone. 2 4
The IT Integrator
The editions page names two plans and a catalogue of add-ons — Premium Cloud, Outlook Pro, Additional Storage, Reporting Databases, an included e-signature package — and even asks "What support and onboarding are included?", yet no price figure appears for any edition, add-on, storage tier or support tier, and the buyer is pointed to requesting a live demo. With on-premises licensing, maintenance terms and partner implementation also unpriced, the real cost is not computable from public pages. 1 2
The Mittelstand Owner
The editions page names two plans and a shelf of add-ons — Premium Cloud, Outlook Pro, additional storage, reporting — but not a single euro figure, storage limit, maintenance percentage or contract term appears in the captured pages. I cannot price forty users before the partner visit, and the fees for the offered implementation and managed services are nowhere stated. 2
The Data Protection Officer
The editions page names two plans and a long add-on catalogue including additional storage, premium cloud and premium support, but we found no public price figures, storage limits, on-premises licence or maintenance terms on the captured pages. A buyer cannot compute the cost of a given number of users, storage and add-ons from what is published here. 2
The Skeptic
The editions page names the plans and an armful of add-ons — Premium Cloud, Outlook Pro, Reporting Databases, Additional Storage — but we found no price figure for licence, storage, maintenance or implementation in what was captured. The nearest thing to a cost signal is a FAQ question about what support and onboarding are included, alongside a homepage invitation to request a live demo; a buyer cannot compute anything from this. 1 2
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about M-Files
Is M-Files European?
Yes. whats-best.ai classifies M-Files as EU-Made.
Where does M-Files store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does M-Files have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to M-Files?
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: M-Files 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 — Subprocessors. 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.
- 17 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 legal 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 pricing 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 subprocessors 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 support 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
- 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
- The panel’s written verdict is withheld: our own re-read found claims in it that the evidence does not carry, and a second synthesis did not fix them. The scores and the material below are unaffected. Know more? Tell us
Sources (15)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.m-files.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page www.m-files.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.m-files.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Terms of service product.m-files.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Trust center www.m-files.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Capture, OCR & indexing — found from sitemap support.m-files.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Capture, OCR & indexing — found from sitemap support.m-files.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Versioning, permissions & audit trail — found from sitemap support.m-files.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Versioning, permissions & audit trail — found from sitemap support.m-files.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Audit-proof archiving & retention — found from sitemap support.m-files.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Audit-proof archiving & retention — found from sitemap support.m-files.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Document workflows & integrations — found from sitemap www.m-files.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Document workflows & integrations — found from sitemap developer.m-files.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 Search, retrieval & exit — found from sitemap support.m-files.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 15 Search, retrieval & exit — found from sitemap support.m-files.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →