Document Management (DMS)
nscale
EU origin, foreign-owned Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Ceyoniq Technology GmbH · ceyoniq.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.
nscale at a glance
- Vendor
- Ceyoniq Technology 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 nscale 2.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. nscale is the document management platform of Ceyoniq Technology GmbH, Bielefeld. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 1 Oct 2026 to 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
nscale is the document management platform of Ceyoniq Technology GmbH, Bielefeld. It is strongest on document workflows, where scores sit at 7 with no spread: BPMN drag-and-drop modelling, DMN decision rules, a four-step incoming-invoice process, and a DATEV connector whose supported products, master-data access and posting handover with document link are documented in real depth. Permissions score 6-7 on predefined role concepts, rights on object classes, attributes and masks, and visibility rules configurable down to attribute values. The weak end is sovereignty at 1-3 — we found no public information on where the cloud edition stores documents, on subprocessors, or where the AI-based document recognition processes content, and ownership traces to Japan's Kyocera Document Solutions in the provenance, unconfirmed on the vendor's own pages. Audit-proof archiving manages 4-5: GoBD conformity and revision-proof archiving are claimed, but no auditor's report and no technical account of immutability is public. Pricing transparency scores 0 — no public prices, brochure gated, demo on request — a criterion the bench reports but does not count. The bench computed no material disagreements.
Speaks for it
- Document workflows, the top criterion, scores 7 with no spread, on BPMN drag-and-drop modelling, DMN decision rules and a four-step incoming-invoice process
- The DATEV connector is documented in depth, naming supported DATEV products, master-data access, posting handover with document link and payment status
- Versioning and permissions scores 6-7, with predefined role concepts, rights on object classes, attributes and masks, and visibility rules configurable down to attribute values
- Capture and indexing scores 4-6 on intake that bundles letter, e-mail and multifunction-device channels with classification and automated data extraction
- Search and portability scores 4-6, with migration tools for export, transfer and import that preserve index data, metadata and e-files, plus an incremental path
Held against it
- Sovereignty scores 1-3, the lowest cluster, with no public information on where the cloud edition stores documents, on subprocessors, or where AI recognition processes content
- Audit-proof archiving scores 4-5, with no public auditor's report or Testat and no technical account of how immutability is achieved
- We found no public information on an API reference, webhooks or e-signature — API and CMIS appear only in a migration checklist
- Exit is unevidenced: the documented export tooling is framed for migrating in, and no post-termination retrieval window or deletion terms are public
- Capture detail is thin — we found no public information on a validation step, duplicate detection, or XRechnung and ZUGFeRD read as structured data
Best for
- You run DATEV financial accounting and want invoice intake, posting handover with document links and payment status in one flow
- Your team wants modelled, low-code processes — BPMN and DMN rules with ad-hoc circulation — rather than hard-coded workflows
- You need fine-grained permissions across user, group and department levels, configurable down to attribute values
- You are migrating a legacy archive in and need tooling that preserves index data, metadata and e-files
Avoid if
- You must show an auditor a certified archiving setup — no Testat, IDW PS 880 report or WORM description is public, and audit-proof archiving scores 4-5
- Your procurement requires documented cloud residency and a subprocessor list — sovereignty scores 1-3 and ownership traces to Japan's Kyocera Document Solutions per the bench's records
- You integrate via a public API with webhooks and events — interfaces appear only as API and CMIS items in a migration checklist
- You need documented exit — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Capture, OCR & indexing | 2.5 of 5 |
| Versioning, permissions & audit trail | 3 of 5 |
| Audit-proof archiving & retention | 2 of 5 |
| Document workflows & integrations | 3.5 of 5 |
| Search, retrieval & exit | 2.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1 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
Letter, e-mail and multifunction-device intake is bundled, digitized and classified, with automated data extraction, automatic assignment and KI-based document recognition in the DATEV flow documented. What the captured pages never spell out is full-text OCR at intake, document types with their metadata fields, and a validation step; I also found no public information on XRechnung or ZUGFeRD being read as structured data rather than as pictures. 5 12
The Records Manager
Digital post intake is broad — letter, email and multifunction-device channels are bundled and digitized, incoming documents are classified and assigned automatically, data extraction is automated, and invoice recognition is described as AI-based. Before I call capture engineered I want a validation step for extracted fields, duplicate detection and a statement on where AI processing runs; we found no public information on any of these, nor on how e-invoice formats are read as structured data. 5 12
The IT Integrator
Intake is documented concretely: letter, email and multifunction devices are bundled and digitized, the complete incoming mail is classified and filed centrally, and automated data extraction plus AI-based invoice recognition are named. We found no public information on OCR detail, which fields the extraction covers, duplicate detection, validation steps, or whether XRechnung and ZUGFeRD are read as structured data. 5 11 12
The Mittelstand Owner
The digital post intake is real: every channel from letter to e-mail to multifunction devices is bundled, digitalized, classified and centrally filed, with automated data extraction and index plus full-text search by customer, supplier and order. But for the point my accountant asks about first, I found no public information that XRechnung or ZUGFeRD e-invoices arrive as structured data, and nothing on a validation step, confidence values or duplicate detection. 5 6 11
The Data Protection Officer
Intake is documented broadly — letter, email and multifunction devices are bundled into a digital inbox with automatic classification of incoming mail, automated data extraction and AI-based document recognition for invoices. We found no public information on full-text OCR, on XRechnung and ZUGFeRD being read as structured data, on a validation step with confidence values, or on where and by which provider the AI processing runs — for a system ingesting personnel files that last silence matters most. 5 11 12
The Skeptic
Intake from letter, e-mail and multifunction devices with classification of the entire incoming mail and automated data extraction is documented, as is index and full-text search. The AI-based document recognition is presented with no validation step, no named fields and no statement of where the AI runs — exactly the kind of claim I do not credit on faith. We found no public information on OCR specifics, duplicate detection, or XRechnung and ZUGFeRD handling; an e-invoice page was captured but produced no statements on formats. 5 6 11 12
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
The rights side is genuinely deep: predefined role concepts, visibility rules configurable on attribute values, an ACL-like control list on top, and rights on object classes, attributes and masks at user, group and department level. Use, editing and filing of documents are logged, with versioning, workflow and handover protocols named; I found no public information on check-in/check-out and restore, on single sign-on or directory sync as a product capability rather than a migration checklist item, nor on the log being tamper-evident or its retention period. 7 8 9 14
The Records Manager
Permissions are layered the way I like them — user, group and department levels, predefined role concepts, and visibility rules configurable down to attribute values — with audit logging of use, editing and filing documented alongside version logs. Versioning itself is documented only as preserving the original format; we found no public information on restoring earlier versions or on check-in and check-out, and single sign-on appears only as an item to review during migration. 8 9 14
The IT Integrator
Permissions are the strong part: user, group and department levels, rights configured on object classes, attributes and masks, predefined role concepts, ACL-like nscale Control Lists and visibility rules configurable down to individual attribute values. Versioning and logging of usage, editing and filing are documented, but we found no public information on check-out, restoring earlier versions, directory sync or single sign-on beyond a migration-checklist mention, or whether administrators' own actions are logged. 8 9 14
The Mittelstand Owner
Rights go well beyond folder level: predefined role concepts, user, group and department permissions, visibility rules configurable down to attribute values, and an NCL list that works like Windows ACLs — genuinely fine-grained. Versioning and audit logging are documented (versioning logs, workflow logs, handover to other systems), but I found no public information on restoring earlier versions, check-out, or a trail of reads, exports and administrators' own actions; the SSO/IAM mention sits in a migration checklist rather than a capability page. 8 9 11 14
The Data Protection Officer
Permissions go well beyond folders — user, group and department levels, predefined role concepts, rights on object classes, attributes and masks, and visibility rules configurable down to attribute values — and the use, editing and filing of documents is logged alongside versioning and workflow protocols. We found no public information on check-in and check-out, on single sign-on with directory sync as a product feature, on exports and deletions appearing in the log, on logging of administrators' own actions, or on tamper-evidence of the trail. 8 9 14
The Skeptic
Permissions are the strong side: predefined role concepts, rights configured on object classes, attributes and masks, visibility rules configurable down to attribute values and an ACL-like control list, plus a protocol of usage, editing and filing with versioning and workflow logs. We found no public information on check-in and check-out, on single sign-on or directory sync beyond a migration checklist mentioning SSO/IAM, or on logging of exports, deletions and administrator actions. 8 9 11 14
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
There is a dedicated GoBD page with substance: the incoming document and the complete e-mail with attachments archived in original format, definable retention rule frameworks, complete traceability of processing, and support for keeping the Verfahrensdokumentation current. What I would still be asked for in an audit is absent: no auditor's Testat or IDW PS 880 report with scope and date, no WORM storage described, no legal hold, no deletion after expiry documented, and I found no public information on a Z1–Z3 tax-audit export. 5 9 11
The Records Manager
The claim is on the table — GoBD-conformant, revision-proof archiving with retention rule definitions, archiving of originals including email attachments, and support for keeping the Verfahrensdokumentation current. I found no auditor's report or certificate, no description of how immutability of archived documents is technically achieved, and no public information on deletion after retention expires or on tax-audit data export. 5 9
The IT Integrator
The GoBD pages go beyond a bare claim: retention rule definitions, storage of the original including email and attachments in the format received, traceable processing, and support for keeping the Verfahrensdokumentation current for every user. We found no public information on an auditor's report, how immutability is technically achieved, deletion after expiry, legal hold, or the Z1–Z3 tax-audit export. 5 9
The Mittelstand Owner
Revision-safe archiving and GoBD-compliant document management are claimed, retention rule definitions and original-format archiving of e-mails with their attachments are documented, and they support keeping a current Verfahrensdokumentation. I found no public information on an auditor's report or certificate, on how immutability is technically achieved, on deletion after retention expiry, or on a tax-audit export — so the claim rests on wording, not on evidence. 5 9 14
The Data Protection Officer
Revisionssichere Archivierung and GoBD conformity are claimed, retention rule definitions and original-format archiving of documents and complete emails with attachments are described, and support for keeping a current Verfahrensdokumentation is offered. We found no public information on an auditor's report or certificate with scope and date, on how immutability is technically achieved, on deletion after expiry, on legal hold, on Z1–Z3 tax-audit export, or on how GDPR deletion is reconciled with the six- and ten-year retention duties the vendor itself cites. 9 11 14
The Skeptic
GoBD conformity and revision-proof archiving are claimed, with retention rule definitions, original-format archiving including e-mail and attachments as sent, and support for keeping a Verfahrensdokumentation current described. We found no public information on an auditor's report or Testat, on how immutability of archived documents is technically achieved, on deletion after retention expiry, or on tax-audit data access — the word 'revisionssicher' is doing all the work on these captured pages. 5 9 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
BPMN modelling by drag & drop with DMN decision rules, a low-code approach, a four-step incoming-invoice process, notifications and reminders and an ad-hoc circulation folder are documented, and the DATEV connector is described in real depth — master data, payment status, posting record with document link over DATEVconnect — plus SAP permissions set by plug-in. The captured pages give no information on webhooks, e-signature integration or process reporting with throughput times, and the API and CMIS mention sits in a migration checklist rather than in API documentation. 8 11 12 14
The Records Manager
Workflows are modelled, not hard-coded: BPMN drag-and-drop design on a low-code basis, DMN decision rules, notification and reminder functions, ad-hoc circulation folders and incoming invoice processing mapped in four steps. The DATEV connector is documented in real depth — master-data access, payment status, posting handover with a document link — and an SAP plug-in exists; we found no public information on webhooks or events, on e-signature, or on an API reference beyond a passing mention of API and CMIS. 8 11 12 14
The IT Integrator
This is where the product earns its keep in my stack: a BPMN modeler with drag-and-drop, DMN decision rules and a low-code Process Automation Platform, plus a DATEV connector whose scope is actually stated — DATEVconnect interface, the supported DATEV products, master-data access and posting proposals with document links handed back to DATEV — alongside an SAP permissions plugin. Held back because we found no public information on webhooks or events, e-signature, Microsoft 365 or Dynamics connectors, or API documentation beyond a mention that API and CMIS interfaces exist. 8 11 12 14
The Mittelstand Owner
This is the strongest part for a forty-person shop: BPMN modelling per drag & drop, low-code standard workflows, incoming invoice processing in four steps with reminders and transparent status, and a deeply documented DATEV connector that hands over posting proposals with document links and reads master data and payment status back, with the supported DATEV products named. The SAP plug-in is documented only for setting permissions, and I found no public information on webhooks, e-signature or an API reference — interfaces appear only as 'API, CMIS' in a migration checklist. 8 11 12 14
The Data Protection Officer
The Process Automation Platform offers graphical BPMN modelling by drag and drop without programming knowledge, DMN decision rules, notification and reminder functions and a four-step incoming-invoice workflow, and the DATEV connector is documented in real depth — master data access, posting records, document links and payment status — with an SAP permission plug-in named. We found no public information on webhooks or events, on e-signature, or on a public API reference; interfaces appear only as API and CMIS items in a migration checklist. 8 11 12
The Skeptic
The workflow side is genuinely documented: BPMN modelling by drag and drop on a low-code platform, DMN decision rules, incoming-invoice processing in four steps, an ad-hoc circulation folder, and a DATEV connector whose scope is spelled out down to the supported DATEV products and the posting handover with document link. For the rest we found no public information: no webhooks or events, no e-signature, no API reference with limits or sandbox — the migration page only advises checking available interfaces such as API and CMIS, and the SAP mention covers setting permissions by plug-in, not document handover. 8 11 12 14
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
Index and full-text search by customers, suppliers and orders plus a standard web application are documented, and migration tools for export, transfer and import preserving index data, metadata and e-files are named, with an archive-migration whitepaper on offer. For the exit itself I found no public information on a documented bulk-export format covering documents, metadata, versions and audit trail, on self-service export or a post-termination retrieval window, and saved searches are equally unevidenced. 5 11 14
The Records Manager
Index and full-text search by customer, supplier and order plus standard web access will find the contract from 2019 again, and migration tooling for export, transfer and import is described as preserving index data, metadata and electronic files. That export capability is presented for migration rather than for leaving the vendor; we found no public information on saved searches, export formats, an audit-trail export or post-termination retrieval terms. 5 11 14
The IT Integrator
Index and full-text search by customers, suppliers and orders plus a standard web application cover retrieval, and the migration material documents automated tools for export, transfer and import that preserve index data, metadata and e-files, with an incremental path in. That story is about moving onto the platform, though: we found no public information on saved searches, mobile access, a documented export format or schema, or the post-termination retrieval window and data deletion. 5 11 14
The Mittelstand Owner
Index and full-text search plus a standard web application are documented, and the migration tools export, transfer and import data and documents with index data, metadata and e-files intact — which also names the way in from an old system. But the migration framing is about moving to nscale, not leaving it: I found no public information on saved searches, mobile access, search across versions and attachments, or export and deletion terms once the contract ends. 5 11 14
The Data Protection Officer
Index and full-text search by customers, suppliers and orders plus a standard web application are documented, and tools for export, transfer and import that preserve index data, metadata and e-files are named — oriented, however, at archive migration into the system. We found no public information on saved searches, on export including versions and audit trail in a documented structure, on self-service export at contract end, or on a post-termination retrieval window and data deletion. 5 11 14
The Skeptic
Index and full-text search and a standard web application are documented, and migration tools for export, transfer and import that carry index data, metadata and e-files are described — an import path from legacy systems, though framed for migration rather than exit. We found no public information on saved searches, on export file formats, on exporting documents together with their versions and audit trail, or on a post-termination retrieval window and data deletion. 5 11 13 14
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
Cloud, on-premises and hybrid deployment are offered, which at least leaves a sovereign option on the table, and a German privacy policy exists. Beyond that I found no public information on where cloud documents and metadata are stored, on any subprocessor list, on where AI processing of document content runs, or on ISO 27001 or BSI C5 certifications, and the ownership sits with Japan's Kyocera group. 2 14
The Records Manager
We found no public information on where documents and their metadata are stored in the cloud edition, on subprocessors including any AI provider that reads document content, or on certifications; ownership traces to Kyocera in Japan. Cloud, on-premises and hybrid deployment options are named, but the captured pages say nothing about where cloud or AI processing actually runs. 2 3 14
The IT Integrator
Cloud, On-Prem and Hybrid deployment are offered and a German entity in Bielefeld under Japan's Kyocera appears in the provenance, but the captured pages state no data residency for the cloud edition, publish no subprocessor list, disclose no location for the AI-based document recognition, and show no certifications. For a product marketing AI on invoice documents, silence on where that processing runs is the gap I weigh most. 2 11 12 14
The Mittelstand Owner
The provenance points to Ceyoniq Technology GmbH in Bielefeld under Japanese ownership (Kyocera), but on the vendor's own captured pages I found no public information confirming the contracting entity, where the cloud edition stores documents and metadata, the subprocessor list, or where the AI-based document recognition actually runs. For a system holding all my invoices and HR records, that is too many open questions for a passing mark. 2 3 12
The Data Protection Officer
Cloud, on-premises and hybrid deployment are offered, and the company presents itself from Bielefeld — but external provenance notes it belongs to Kyocera Document Solutions of Japan, which the captured pages do not confirm, and we found no public information on where the cloud edition stores documents and metadata, on a subprocessor list with locations, on a data processing agreement, or on which provider performs the AI-based document recognition on document content. For a DMS holding personnel files, health certificates and customer contracts together, this opacity around the cloud chain and the AI reading the content is the decisive fact. 2 11 14
The Skeptic
Independent sourcing identifies a German company under Japan's Kyocera Document Solutions, but we found no public information on the captured pages confirming entity or ownership, on where the cloud edition stores documents and metadata, on subprocessors, or on where the AI-based document recognition processes customer content. On-premises and hybrid deployment are offered, which is the one documented lever a sovereignty-minded buyer gets. 2 3 12 14
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the cost of a given number of users, storage and modules — including cloud versus on-premises licensing, maintenance, implementation partner fees and price increases — from public pages alone.
0 — No public prices at all; every quote comes from sales or a partner.
3 — A "from" price or a single edition priced, but modules, storage, maintenance and partner implementation are unstated — the real cost is unknowable.
5 — Editions priced per user or per month, but at least one commonly needed cost (storage, archiving or workflow module, maintenance percentage, onboarding) is missing or "on request".
8 — Every edition and module priced publicly, storage limits and overage stated, on-premises licence and maintenance terms given, and contract term and notice period published.
10 — Complete cost computability: a configurator or price list covering users, modules, storage and deployment model, partner implementation priced or bounded, and price-increase terms on a public page.
The GoBD Auditor
The captured pages contain no prices at all — no editions, no per-user or per-month figures, nothing on storage, maintenance or contract term. The only paths to detail are a consent-gated brochure form and a live-demo request, so every cost figure has to come from sales. 7 11 14
The Records Manager
We found no public prices at all — no edition, user or storage figures on any captured page; brochures sit behind a consent form and live demos are offered on request. A buyer cannot compute even part of the cost from public pages alone. 7 11 14
The IT Integrator
Every route to information runs through a human: the brochure sits behind a gated form requiring name, company, postal code, email and privacy consent, and the call to action is a live demo on request or an email to the vendor. We found no public prices at all — not editions, not modules, not storage, not maintenance — so a buyer cannot compute even a rough total cost before talking to sales. 5 7 11 7
The Mittelstand Owner
I found no public price information at all — no per-user rate, no edition or module prices, no storage tiers, no maintenance percentage, no contract term. Even the brochure on access rights sits behind a form asking for name, company, postal code, e-mail and privacy consent, and the live demo is on request, so everything runs through sales or a partner and the real cost is unknowable before the partner visit. 7 14 7
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public prices at all — nothing per user or per month, no editions, modules, storage, maintenance or implementation figures — and the rights-management brochure sits behind a consent form while the demo and consulting are available on request only. A buyer cannot compute any part of the cost from the captured pages. 7 11 14
The Skeptic
We found no public prices of any kind — no editions, no modules, no storage or maintenance figures. The brochure sits behind a consent form collecting name, company, postal code and e-mail, and the offered route to information is a live demo on request; a buyer cannot compute anything from these pages. 7 11 7
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about nscale
Is nscale European?
Partly. whats-best.ai classifies nscale as EU origin, foreign-owned.
Where does nscale store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does nscale have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to nscale?
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: nscale alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 1 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Ownership, Legal entity. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- We found no public information on pricing on the pages we read (ceyoniq.com, ceyoniq.com/datenschutzerklaerung, ceyoniq.com/impressum, ceyoniq.com/agb, ceyoniq.com/digitaler-posteingang, ceyoniq.com/e-rechnungen and 8 more). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- 56 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
- 18 legal facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 8 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
- 5 integrations 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 support 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
- 2 compliance 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 data 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 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
- 2 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (14)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage ceyoniq.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Privacy policy ceyoniq.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Legal notice ceyoniq.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Terms of service ceyoniq.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Capture, OCR & indexing — found from sitemap ceyoniq.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Capture, OCR & indexing — found from sitemap ceyoniq.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Versioning, permissions & audit trail — found from sitemap ceyoniq.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Versioning, permissions & audit trail — found from sitemap ceyoniq.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Audit-proof archiving & retention — found from sitemap ceyoniq.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Audit-proof archiving & retention — found from sitemap ceyoniq.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Document workflows & integrations — found from sitemap ceyoniq.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Document workflows & integrations — found from sitemap ceyoniq.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Search, retrieval & exit — found from sitemap ceyoniq.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 Search, retrieval & exit — found from sitemap ceyoniq.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →