Document Management (DMS)
windream
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by dataglobal Group GmbH · dataglobalgroup.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.
windream at a glance
- Vendor
- dataglobal Group 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 windream 1.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. windream, the DMS from dataglobal Group GmbH, was scored strongest on capture and indexing, at 4 to 6, and weakest on versioning and permissions and on sovereignty, at 1 to 2 on both. 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.
The panel's verdict
windream, the DMS from dataglobal Group GmbH, was scored strongest on capture and indexing, at 4 to 6, and weakest on versioning and permissions and on sovereignty, at 1 to 2 on both. What the pages document is an e-invoice pipeline: XRechnung and ZUGFeRD invoices are read out, validated, automatically checked for errors, indexed by supplier name and invoice number, and passed to a standardized workflow of checking, approval and posting with forwarding to tax consultants and configurable automated payments. Audit-proof archiving scored 3 to 4: 'unchangeable and revision-safe' storage is claimed and retention consulting offered, but we found no public information on a certificate, how immutability is achieved, configurable retention or a tax-audit export. The judges did not meaningfully disagree — every criterion fell within a two-point band — and the low scores track undocumented ground: permissions rest on one 'detailed history' phrase, integration is promised as 'the systems you already use' without named connectors, and the four recorded sovereignty attributes, from contracting entity to subprocessor exposure, are unknown despite Bochum development and Heilbronn publishing. No prices are published.
Speaks for it
- E-invoices in XRechnung and ZUGFeRD are read out, validated and automatically checked for errors.
- Invoices are automatically indexed by supplier name, invoice number and other criteria.
- A standardized invoice workflow of checking, approval and posting is documented, with forwarding to tax consultants or third-party systems and configurable automated payments.
- Paper invoices are automatically converted into e-invoices.
- Expert consulting on digital archiving and legal retention periods is offered at any time.
Held against it
- We found no public information on version history, check-in and check-out, role- or record-level permissions, single sign-on or an audit log of reads, changes and exports.
- The audit-proof archiving claim comes with no public information on a certificate or auditor's report, on how immutability is achieved, on configurable retention periods or on a tax-audit export.
- Integration is promised only as coordination with 'the systems you already use', with no public information on named ERP or DATEV connectors or a documented API.
- Contracting entity, ownership, data residency and subprocessor exposure are recorded as unknown, and we found no public information on certifications such as ISO 27001 or BSI C5.
- We found no public information on bulk export of documents with their metadata, versions or audit trail, or on any exit path when a contract ends.
Best for
- You receive German e-invoices in XRechnung and ZUGFeRD and want them read, validated, error-checked and indexed automatically by supplier name and invoice number.
- You want a standardized checking-approval-posting invoice workflow with forwarding to your tax consultant or third-party systems and configurable automated payments.
- You want a digital archive and DMS in one product and are open to taking guidance on legal retention periods from the vendor's consultants.
Avoid if
- You need provable access control — role- and record-level permissions, single sign-on and an audit log of reads and changes — for documents such as personnel files alongside invoices.
- Your procurement must confirm data residency, subprocessor exposure and certifications before signing.
- You wire the DMS into ERP, DATEV or Microsoft 365 and need named connectors and a documented API with stated scope.
- You need a documented exit path with bulk export of documents, metadata, versions and audit trail when the contract ends.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Capture, OCR & indexing | 2.5 of 5 |
| Versioning, permissions & audit trail | 1 of 5 |
| Audit-proof archiving & retention | 2 of 5 |
| Document workflows & integrations | 1.5 of 5 |
| Search, retrieval & exit | 1 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 0.5 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
Incoming e-invoices in XRechnung and ZUGFeRD are read, validated and handed to standardized workflows as structured data, then indexed automatically by supplier name and invoice number — the right shape for e-invoice capture. Beyond that, we found no public information on OCR, on scanner, mailbox or folder intake, on duplicate detection, or on where any AI processing runs; the nearest statement is that paper invoices are "automatically converted" into e-invoices. 4 9
The Records Manager
Invoice capture is genuinely documented: XRechnung and ZUGFeRD are read, validated and error-checked as structured data, invoices are indexed automatically by supplier name, invoice number and other criteria, and paper invoices are converted automatically. We found no public information on scanning or mailbox intake, full-text OCR, classification with a validation step, or duplicate detection. 4 5 9
The IT Integrator
The e-invoice side is real: the pages describe XRechnung and ZUGFeRD with their contents read out, validated and passed to standardized workflows, plus automatic indexing by supplier name and invoice number and conversion of paper invoices to e-invoices. Beyond invoices, though, we found no public information on intake channels (scanner, mailbox, Microsoft 365), full-text OCR, classification with confidence, duplicate detection, or where any AI processing runs, which holds this at the mid level. 4 9
The Mittelstand Owner
The e-invoice intake I read for first is documented: XRechnung and ZUGFeRD are read and validated with automatic error checking, and invoices are automatically indexed by supplier name, invoice number and other criteria. What holds it below the top: we found no public information on mailbox or Microsoft 365 intake, full-text OCR, duplicate detection, or how classification and extraction are trained and validated. 4 5 9
The Data Protection Officer
E-invoices in XRechnung and ZUGFeRD are read as structured, machine-readable data and automatically checked for errors, paper invoices can be converted to e-invoices, and automatic indexing by supplier name and invoice number is documented. We found no public information on OCR, scanner, email or Microsoft 365 intake, duplicate detection, or where automated content recognition runs and which provider is behind it — the first question I would put to this vendor before a personnel file enters the system. 4 9
The Skeptic
Automatic indexing by supplier name and invoice number, and e-invoices in ZUGFeRD and XRechnung read out, checked for errors and passed to standardized workflows, are documented — capture is evidenced for the invoice pipeline. For the DMS as a whole we found no public information on scanner, email or Microsoft 365 intake, OCR, duplicate detection, validation queues, or where any AI processing runs. 4 9
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 captured pages offer only "transparent and documented processes with a detailed history" for invoice processing, which describes a process log rather than provable access control. We found no public information on version history, check-in and check-out, role- or record-level rights, single sign-on, or an audit trail of reads and changes. 9
The Records Manager
The only trace is a claim of transparent and documented processes with a detailed history for invoice workflows, which is process history rather than document protection. We found no public information on version history with restore, check-in and check-out, role- or record-level permissions, single sign-on, or an audit log of reads, exports and deletions. 6 9
The IT Integrator
The only related statement is 'transparent and documented processes with a detailed history' for invoice workflows; we found no public information on version history, check-in and check-out, role- or record-level permissions, single sign-on or directory sync, or an audit log of who read or changed what. With rights essentially not described and no log of document access, this sits at the bottom of the scale. 9
The Mittelstand Owner
The only statement is a transparent, documented history of the invoice processes; we found no public information on version history, check-in and check-out, role- or record-level rights, single sign-on, or an audit log of reads and changes. For a forty-person office I cannot tell from these pages who may see which invoice. 6 9
The Data Protection Officer
The only trace of traceability is 'transparent documented processes with a detailed history' in the invoice workflow; we found no public information on version history and restore, check-in and check-out, role- or record-level permissions, single sign-on, or an audit trail covering reads, exports and deletions. For a system that would hold personnel files, health certificates and customer contracts side by side, I cannot verify from the captured pages who may see or change which document. 9
The Skeptic
Everything rests on 'transparent and documented processes with a detailed history', which describes invoice process transparency rather than access control. We found no public information on version history, check-in and check-out, role- or record-level rights, single sign-on and directory sync, or an audit log of reads, changes and exports. 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
Invoices are documented as stored "unchangeably and revision-safe" in the ECM system and the archive is marketed as audit-proof, which is somewhat more than a bare conformity label. Still, we found no public information on an auditor's Testat with scope and date, on WORM or equivalent storage, on retention periods configurable per document type, on deletion after expiry, or on a Z1–Z3 export for the tax office; retention is addressed only as consulting offered on legal retention periods. 4 6 9
The Records Manager
Unchangeable, revision-safe archiving of invoices is stated and consulting on legal retention periods is offered, which clears the bare-claim level by one step. We found no public information on a certificate or auditor's report, how immutability is achieved, retention periods configurable per document type, deletion after expiry, or tax-audit data access. 4 6 9
The IT Integrator
Invoices are to be stored 'unveränderbar und revisionssicher' in the ECM system and 'audit-proof archiving' is listed as a feature, but we found no public information on how immutability is achieved, on configurable retention schedules per document type, on a Verfahrensdokumentation sample, on an auditor's report, or on a tax-audit export. Retention appears only as a standing consulting offer, which is the claim-without-evidence level. 4 6 9
The Mittelstand Owner
Immutability is claimed in plain words — invoices are stored unchangeably and revision-safe in the ECM system — and expert consulting on legal retention periods is offered. But we found no public information on a certificate or auditor's report, retention periods configurable per document type, deletion after expiry, or a sample procedure documentation, so the claim rests on the vendor's word alone. 4 6 9
The Data Protection Officer
Revision-safe, unchangeable archiving of invoices and audit-proof archiving are claimed, and expert consulting on legal retention periods is offered, but we found no public information on a certificate or auditor's report, on how immutability is achieved technically, on configurable retention periods with deletion after expiry, or on how GDPR deletion is reconciled with retention duties. 4 6 9
The Skeptic
'Unveränderbar und revisionssicher' and 'audit-proof archiving' are the words I have read on every DMS homepage, and here too we found no public information on a Testat or auditor's report, WORM storage, how immutability is achieved, configurable retention, or the Z1–Z3 export. Retention periods appear only as something their consultants can advise on, which is a service offer, not documentation. 4 6 9
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
The invoice process is standardized and fixed at three steps — checking, approval and posting — with automated payments and forwarding to tax consultants or third-party systems. Integration is described generically as "the systems you already use", and we found no public information on a workflow designer, on named ERP or DATEV connectors with their scope, on tasks with deadlines and substitutes, or on a documented API. 9
The Records Manager
A standardized three-step invoice workflow of checking, approval and posting is documented, with forwarding to tax consultants or third-party systems, automated payments, and integration with the systems you already use — the vendor's own DMS being the only named target. We found no public information on a graphical workflow designer, tasks with deadlines and substitutes, a documented API, or named ERP, DATEV and Microsoft 365 connectors. 4 8 9
The IT Integrator
A standardized invoice workflow of checking, approval and posting is documented, with forwarding to tax consultants and third-party systems and configurable automated payments. As the person who wires DMS to ERP, DATEV and Microsoft 365, I need named connectors with a stated scope and a documented API with webhooks; we found no public information on any of that, nor on a workflow designer, tasks with substitutes or e-signature — so this is a fixed approval chain with generic integration promises. 4 9
The Mittelstand Owner
The invoice workflow is real and standardized — checking, approval, posting — with forwarding to the tax consultant, automated payments, and a claim of coordination with the vendor's own DMS and the customer's existing systems. We found no public information on a workflow designer, tasks with deadlines and substitutes, a documented API, or connectors for DATEV or named ERP systems, so I cannot judge how much consultant time setup would need. 4 9
The Data Protection Officer
A standardized invoice workflow with checking, approval and posting is documented, invoices and receipts can be forwarded to tax consultants or third-party systems, and integration with 'the systems you already use' is promised in general terms. We found no public information on a workflow designer, tasks with deadlines and substitutes, named ERP or DATEV connectors, an API, or e-signature. 8 9
The Skeptic
A standardized invoice workflow of checking, approval and posting, with configurable automated payments and forwarding to tax consultants or third-party systems, is genuinely described. It is a fixed process though — we found no public information on a workflow designer, tasks with deadlines and substitutes, a documented API, webhooks or e-signature — and integration is claimed as 'the systems you already use', naming no ERP system, no DATEV handover and no scope. 4 9
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
Finding invoices again is documented as an efficient search built on automatic indexing by supplier name, invoice number and other criteria. We found no public information on full-text search, saved searches or mobile access, and likewise no public information on bulk export of documents with metadata, versions or audit trail, or on the exit path when a contract ends. 6 9
The Records Manager
Retrieval by indexed invoice fields such as supplier name and invoice number is documented, alongside a fast and efficient document search claim. We found no public information on full-text search, filters and saved searches, mobile access, or a documented bulk export of documents with their metadata, versions and audit trail when a contract ends. 6 9
The IT Integrator
Search by indexed supplier names and invoice numbers plus 'efficient document search' is stated, but we found no public information on full-text search, filters or saved searches, mobile access, or any bulk export of documents with their metadata, versions and audit trail. Nothing on an exit path is documented at all, which leaves this just under the level where full-text search and export exist. 6 9
The Mittelstand Owner
Finding invoices again is addressed through automatic indexing by supplier name and invoice number plus an efficient invoice search. We found no public information on full-text search, saved searches, mobile access, or any documented bulk export of documents with their metadata for when the contract ends. 6 9
The Data Protection Officer
'Fast and efficient document search' and automatic indexing by supplier name and invoice number are stated for invoices. We found no public information on full-text and metadata search with filters, saved searches, mobile access, or a documented export of documents, metadata, versions and audit trail when the contract ends — the exit path is exactly where I need proof. 6 9
The Skeptic
Search is claimed as 'fast and efficient document search' with invoices findable by indexed supplier name and invoice number; full-text search, metadata filters, saved searches and mobile access are not described. We found no public information on bulk export of documents with metadata, versions or audit trail, on an import path, or on any post-termination arrangement — with a vendor this silent on export, I treat the exit as a negotiation, not a feature. 6 9
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 product is published by dataglobal Group GmbH in Heilbronn with development in Bochum, but the vendor's own captured pages confirm neither the contracting entity's jurisdiction nor where documents and metadata are stored or processed in a cloud edition. We found no public information on ownership, data residency, hosting, subprocessors or any AI provider that might read document content. 2 3
The Records Manager
The sovereignty attributes came back unknown on every point — contracting entity, ownership, data residency and subprocessor exposure are not confirmed on the captured pages, including the legal notice and privacy policy. We found no public information on where documents and metadata are stored or processed, certifications, or an on-premises option; the German provenance note of Bochum development and a Heilbronn publisher is all that points at Europe. 2 3
The IT Integrator
The vendor is named as dataglobal Group GmbH with development in Bochum, but the captured pages give no confirmed contracting entity, and we found no public information on where documents and metadata are stored and processed, on subprocessors including any AI provider, or on certifications such as ISO 27001 or BSI C5. Every sovereignty attribute came back unknown, which is bottom-of-scale territory despite the German provenance. 2 3
The Mittelstand Owner
Despite the German origin story, the captured pages give me nothing verifiable: we found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, where documents and metadata are stored in any cloud edition, hosting or AI processing locations, or the subprocessor list, and every independently sourced sovereignty attribute is marked unknown. For a German company archiving tax-relevant invoices, that silence is the deal risk. 1 2 3
The Data Protection Officer
The vendor presents windream as developed in Bochum and names dataglobal Group GmbH of Heilbronn as publisher, yet the captured pages leave the contracting entity's jurisdiction and its ownership unconfirmed. We found no public information on where the cloud edition stores documents and metadata, on any subprocessor, on which AI provider reads document content during capture, or on certifications such as ISO 27001 or BSI C5. 1 2 3
The Skeptic
The privacy policy and legal notice pages were captured, and from them nothing was confirmed on contracting entity, ownership, storage and processing locations, hosting, subprocessors, or any AI provider that reads invoice content. German development in Bochum and a Heilbronn publisher appear in the provenance line, but on the captured pages we found no public information on data residency, subprocessor lists or certifications. 2 3
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the cost of a given number of users, storage and modules — including cloud versus on-premises licensing, maintenance, implementation partner fees and price increases — from public pages alone.
0 — No public prices at all; every quote comes from sales or a partner.
3 — A "from" price or a single edition priced, but modules, storage, maintenance and partner implementation are unstated — the real cost is unknowable.
5 — Editions priced per user or per month, but at least one commonly needed cost (storage, archiving or workflow module, maintenance percentage, onboarding) is missing or "on request".
8 — Every edition and module priced publicly, storage limits and overage stated, on-premises licence and maintenance terms given, and contract term and notice period published.
10 — Complete cost computability: a configurator or price list covering users, modules, storage and deployment model, partner implementation priced or bounded, and price-increase terms on a public page.
The GoBD Auditor
We found no public price of any kind on the captured pages — no edition, per-user or per-month figure, and no storage, maintenance or implementation terms. A buyer cannot compute the cost of a given number of users from what is published. 1 9
The Records Manager
We found no public prices at all: no editions, per-user figures, storage limits, module or maintenance pricing appear on any captured page, only a free whitepaper download. A buyer cannot compute any part of the cost from what is published. 1 9
The IT Integrator
We found no public prices on any captured page — no editions, per-user rates, storage terms, maintenance percentages or implementation costs; the only cost-related statement is a generic 'fast return on investment (ROI)' claim. A buyer cannot compute anything from these pages. 1 9
The Mittelstand Owner
Across the product and use-case pages we found no public prices at all — no editions, no per-user figures, no storage limits, no maintenance terms — only a fast-ROI claim without a number. Before a partner visit I could not even estimate what forty users cost, and that is exactly the position I refuse to negotiate from. 1 9
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public prices at all — no edition, per-user or storage price, no maintenance or on-premises licensing terms, no contract term or notice period — so a buyer cannot compute any part of the cost from the captured pages alone. 1 9
The Skeptic
We found no public information on editions, licence or per-user prices, storage, maintenance, contract terms or partner implementation; the captured product pages carry a 'fast return on investment' claim and a whitepaper download rather than a figure a buyer could cost from. Any price would come from a conversation with sales or a partner. 1 9
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about windream
Is windream European?
Yes. whats-best.ai classifies windream as EU-Made.
Where does windream store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does windream have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to windream?
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: windream 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 — 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 (dataglobalgroup.com/produkte/windream, dataglobalgroup.com/datenschutz, dataglobalgroup.com/impressum, dataglobalgroup.com/use-cases/e-rechnung, dataglobalgroup.com/en/wissensdatenbank/zugferd, dataglobalgroup.com/en/digital-archiving-windream and 3 more). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- 42 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
- 19 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
- 9 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
- 7 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
- 5 data 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 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 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
- 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
Sources (9)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage dataglobalgroup.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Privacy policy dataglobalgroup.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Legal notice dataglobalgroup.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Capture, OCR & indexing — found from sitemap dataglobalgroup.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Capture, OCR & indexing — found from sitemap dataglobalgroup.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Audit-proof archiving & retention — found from sitemap dataglobalgroup.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Audit-proof archiving & retention — found from sitemap dataglobalgroup.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Document workflows & integrations — found from sitemap dataglobalgroup.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Document workflows & integrations — found from sitemap dataglobalgroup.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →