Marketing Automation
Evalanche
EU-Made Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 3 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by SC-Networks GmbH · www.sc-networks.de
Compare with Mautic → Compare with ActiveCampaign (Automation) → Compare with HubSpot Marketing Hub → Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Evalanche, a marketing automation platform from SC-Networks GmbH of Starnberg, drew persona-weighted totals from 3.1 to 3.7. It is strongest on sovereignty, where scores spread 4-6: judges credited the imprint evidence of a German contracting entity, the vendor's statement that the platform is ISO 27001-certified and "vollständig in Deutschland betrieben", and a stated AVV with the hosting provider, while capping credit because no product subprocessor list is published and the evidence's computed attributes leave data residency and subprocessor exposure unconfirmed. Lead scoring, routing & lifecycle sits at 4 on named Scoring & Profiling and a structured handover to sales. The weakest areas are CRM integration & data model — "Schnittstellen zu CRM & Co." names no CRM, sync direction, or field mapping — and consent, tracking & profiling, with no evidenced double opt-in, consent records, or profiling suppression. Email plus landing pages is the honest channel read; "multichannel" names no second channel. No prices appear on any captured page; every quote runs through a free consultation.
Speaks for it
- Sovereignty is the evidence's high-water mark, with judges citing the imprint's German contracting entity — SC-Networks GmbH, Starnberg, with Amtsgericht München register entry and German VAT ID.
- The vendor states the platform is ISO 27001-certified and 'vollständig in Deutschland betrieben', with 'Made & Hosted in Germany' and a stated AVV with the hosting provider.
- Lead scoring, routing & lifecycle scored 4 — named Scoring & Profiling plus a structured handover of leads to sales.
- Email marketing with hyperpersonalised newsletters and a LeadPage Designer are evidenced within one platform.
Held against it
- CRM integration & data model scored 2 — 'Schnittstellen zu CRM & Co.' names no CRM, sync direction, field mapping, or conflict rules, and the only evidenced API is a statistics export.
- Consent, tracking & profiling — no double opt-in, stored consent record, per-channel consent state, or per-person profiling suppression is evidenced; 'Rechtskonformes Adressmanagement' is one line.
- Journeys & orchestration — a named (AI) Campaign Designer with no evidence on waits, branching, entry/exit conditions, or per-contact journey state.
- Channels & personalisation — 'Crossmedia- & Multichannel-Kommunikation' names no second sendable channel; no SMS, push, or ad audiences appear in the evidence.
- The vendor's own website runs Google Analytics Remarketing, Signals, and Tag Manager on an EU-US DPF basis and requires newsletter sign-up for test access and ebook downloads.
Best for
- You need a German-registered vendor with stated ISO 27001 certification and claimed full German operation for email-centred B2B marketing automation.
- Your campaigns live mainly in email and landing pages built from one platform, with hyperpersonalised newsletters.
- You want named scoring and profiling with a structured handover of qualified leads to sales.
Avoid if
- You need a documented CRM integration — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You must operate granular consent machinery — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You deliver through channels beyond email and landing pages — no SMS, push, or ad-audience capability is named (channels & personalisation 3-4).
- You need to compute a budget from public prices — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
The scores
Journeys & orchestration
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Multi-step automation: triggers, branching, waits, and — the part that decides whether it survives contact with reality — what happens when journeys collide.
0 — Autoresponders on a single trigger; no branching, no waits, no conditions.
3 — Linear sequences with simple conditions, one entry trigger per journey, and no visibility into where a contact currently sits.
5 — A visual builder with branching on attributes and behaviour, waits and goals, entry and exit conditions, and per-contact journey state visible.
8 — Event-driven entry from external systems, frequency capping and suppression across journeys, priority when a contact qualifies for several, versioning of a live journey, and testing against real records.
10 — Orchestration is coherent across the whole programme: one decision layer deciding what a person receives next regardless of which journey wants to send it, holdout groups for measurement, and a journey a colleague can read months later without a diagram.
The Demand Gen Lead
All I get is a '(AI) Campaign Designer' name and a line about 'regelbasiert' automating campaigns and journeys — no branching, no waits, no entry/exit conditions, no per-contact journey state, and nothing anywhere on what happens when two journeys want the same person. That's a builder I cannot defend in a quarterly review, so it sits at linear-sequence level. 2 1
The Sales Ops Manager
"Regelbasiert und datengetrieben" campaign automation plus a (AI) Campaign Designer clears the autoresponder floor, but nothing on branching, waits, entry/exit conditions, per-contact journey state, or what happens when journeys collide. That lands it at linear-with-no-visibility territory. 2 1
The Data Protection Officer
"Automatisiere Kampagnen und Customer Journeys regelbasiert und datengetrieben" plus a named Campaign Designer gets me to simple condition-based automation, but the evidence says nothing about waits, branching, per-contact journey state, or what happens when journeys collide — I cannot place a contact in a journey from this evidence. That is anchor-3 territory at best. 2 1
The Lifecycle Marketer
A 'Campaign Designer' and rule-based, data-driven journey automation are named, which is more than a single-trigger autoresponder, but the evidence is silent on waits, entry and exit conditions, and per-contact journey state — and on the part I look for first: frequency capping, suppression and holdouts when several journeys want the same person. Without any of that, I can't tell where a contact currently sits, so this lands just above linear sequences. 2 1
The Solution Architect
"Kampagnen und Customer Journeys regelbasiert und datengetrieben" plus an (AI) Campaign Designer name is the vocabulary of linear sequences; the evidence is silent on branching, waits, entry and exit conditions, per-contact journey state, and entirely silent on what happens when journeys collide. No evidence reaches the anchor-5 visual builder, so this lands at linear sequences with claims I can't verify. 2 1
The Skeptic
The entire orchestration case is one marketing sentence — "Automatisiere Kampagnen und Customer Journeys regelbasiert und datengetrieben" — plus a named "(AI) Campaign Designer"; not a word on waits, branching, entry/exit conditions, or where a contact currently sits in a journey. That is the linear-sequence register at best, and even that rests on brochure copy, so nothing above rubric level 3 is creditable. 2 1
Lead scoring, routing & lifecycle
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Scoring, qualification and handover to sales — including whether the customer can explain to a lead why the system decided what it decided.
0 — No scoring or lifecycle model; every contact is treated alike.
3 — A single additive score with fixed rules, no decay, no lifecycle stages and no routing.
5 — Configurable scoring on attributes and behaviour with decay, lifecycle stages, and routing to owners or teams with notification.
8 — Multiple scoring models per product or region, negative scoring, account-level scoring alongside contact-level, SLA on follow-up, and score history visible per contact.
10 — Scoring is explainable and accountable: the contribution of each signal visible per record, model changes versioned with their effect on the funnel, routing rules auditable, and predictive scoring — where offered — documented well enough for a DPO to assess it as automated decision-making.
The Demand Gen Lead
'Scoring & Profiling' and a structured lead handover to sales are at least named, which is more than a raw score, but the evidence shows no decay, no negative scoring, no score history per contact, no routing rules or SLA. Sales would take the handover and still ask me why the lead scored what it scored. 2 1
The Sales Ops Manager
Scoring & Profiling and "strukturierte Übergabe an den Vertrieb" is more than a bare fixed score, but there is zero evidence on configurable rules, decay, lifecycle stages, or routing mechanics with notification. I can't tell from this sheet how a lead reaches an owner, and nothing is explainable per record. 2 1
The Data Protection Officer
Scoring & Profiling is claimed, with lifecycle qualification and structured handover to sales, but there is no decay, no score history per contact, no routing rules, and nothing documenting how scores are computed. For my purposes the decisive gap: "Scoring & Profiling" appears twice as a feature name with zero documentation a DPO could use for an Art. 22 assessment — so it sits between the bare additive score and the configurable-scoring anchor. 2 1
The Lifecycle Marketer
'Scoring & Profiling' and the systematic qualification and structured handover of leads to sales are claimed, which gestures at lifecycle and routing. But there is nothing on score decay, negative or account-level scoring, score history per contact, or any way to explain to a lead why the system decided what it decided — the scoring is a black box with a feature name on it. 2 1
The Solution Architect
Scoring & Profiling and a structured handover to Vertrieb are named, which clears "no scoring" — but decay, lifecycle stages, routing rules, negative scoring and per-contact score history are all absent, and nothing suggests a customer could explain a score to a lead. The AI Campaign Designer's "datenbasiert" planning comes with no documentation of how decisions are made. 2 1
The Skeptic
"Scoring & Profiling" exists as a feature name and "übergib relevante Leads strukturiert an den Vertrieb" claims a structured sales handover — one notch above a bare fixed score. Decay, lifecycle stages, routing rules, score history and explainability are entirely unevidenced; no customer here could tell a lead why their number moved. 2 1
Channels & personalisation
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What the platform can actually send and personalise: email, SMS, push, on-site content, ads audiences — judged on what shares one profile and one suppression list.
0 — Email only.
3 — Email plus one further channel, managed separately with its own list and no shared suppression.
5 — Email, SMS or push and web forms driven from one contact profile, with dynamic content blocks and shared unsubscribe handling.
8 — The above plus on-site personalisation, ad-audience sync to the major networks, cross-channel frequency capping, and content personalised on behaviour rather than only on stored fields.
10 — Channel is a delivery detail: one profile and one consent state across every channel, next-best-channel selection, and personalisation that draws on the full behavioural record without the marketer assembling it by hand.
The Demand Gen Lead
Email is real — designers, hyperpersonalised newsletters — and landing pages exist, but 'Crossmedia- & Multichannel-Kommunikation' is a slogan with no second messaging channel named: no SMS, no push, no ad-audience sync, and nothing on shared suppression or unsubscribe across channels. Email plus landing pages with unproven multichannel is a 3. 2 1
The Sales Ops Manager
Email and LeadPages are evidenced as designers on one platform, but "Crossmediale & Multichannel-Kommunikation" is an unsubstantiated slogan: no SMS, push, on-site personalisation or ad-audience evidence, and no word on shared suppression. Email plus landing pages with an unverified multichannel claim sits just above the separate-lists anchor. 2 1
The Data Protection Officer
Confirmed: email with hyperpersonalised newsletters and a LeadPage designer, dressed up as "Crossmedia- & Multichannel-Kommunikation" without a single second named channel. No SMS, no push, no ad audiences, no on-site personalisation, and nothing on shared suppression or unsubscribe handling across channels — I will not credit a marketing adjective as a channel. 2 1
The Lifecycle Marketer
Email with hyperpersonalisation and a LeadPage designer are evidenced inside one platform, and 'crossmedia multichannel' is asserted — but no second delivery channel is ever named: no SMS, no push, no ad audiences, and no shared suppression list or cross-channel frequency capping. Personalisation reads as field-driven; nothing shows it drawing on the behavioural record without hand assembly. 2 1
The Solution Architect
Email marketing and a Landingpage Designer are evidenced, and "Crossmedia- & Multichannel-Kommunikation" is claimed without naming a single further channel — no SMS, no push, no on-site personalisation, no ad-audience sync, and no word on shared suppression or one consent state across channels. Email plus landing pages driven from one profile is the honest read; multichannel here is a brochure word, not a capability. 2 1
The Skeptic
Email is thoroughly evidenced and the LeadPage Designer adds a web channel, but "Crossmedia- & Multichannel-Kommunikation" names no second sendable channel — no SMS, no push, no on-site personalisation, no ad audiences anywhere in the evidence. Crossmedia is a brochure word, and one profile with shared suppression is asserted by nobody. 2 1
Consent, tracking & profiling
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The platform builds behavioural profiles of named people. Consent capture and proof, tracking that can be limited, retention, and whether automated decisions about individuals are documented and contestable.
0 — Tracking always on and undocumented, single opt-in, no consent record, no retention rule, no way to exclude a person from profiling.
3 — Double opt-in available with a timestamp, cookie tracking that cannot be disabled per contact, and retention described as the customer's problem.
5 — Double opt-in as documented default with a stored consent record including source, per-channel consent states, tracking switchable per contact, and stated retention for inactive records.
8 — Consent reproducible as evidence with the wording versioned, profiling suppressible per person, retention executed per data category, documented handling of access and erasure requests including derived scores, and a cookieless or first-party tracking mode.
10 — Built for the accountability principle: a per-contact history of what was tracked, scored and decided, automated decision-making documented well enough to support an Art. 22 assessment, profiling off by default for anyone who has not consented to it, and deletion that removes derived scores as well as raw events.
The Demand Gen Lead
'Rechtskonformes Adressmanagement' gestures at German double opt-in norms but there is no evidenced consent record with source, no per-channel consent states, no per-contact tracking switch, and no stated retention for inactive contacts — the only retention number in the evidence is the vendor's own 7-day server logs. Meanwhile 'Scoring & Profiling' ships with zero documentation of profiling suppression or contestability of the scores. 4 1
The Sales Ops Manager
"Rechtskonformes Adressmanagement" plus a policy listing access, rectification, blocking and deletion rights is a posture, not consent machinery: no evidenced double opt-in default, per-channel consent states, versioned consent records, per-contact tracking switch or profiling suppression. The vendor's own site runs Google Remarketing and Mouseflow session replay on a DPF transfer basis, which for a profiling platform is not a good look. 4 1
The Data Protection Officer
The entire consent story is "Rechtskonformes Adressmanagement" plus a GDPR/ISO badge — no double opt-in, no stored consent record with source, no per-contact tracking switch, no retention for inactive records, no profiling suppression, no documented erasure that reaches derived scores. Worse, the vendor's own policy requires newsletter signup as consideration for test access and ebook downloads, which tells me consent is treated as a tradeable good rather than evidence to be reproduced per person. 2 4 1
The Lifecycle Marketer
The product does Scoring & Profiling on named people, yet nothing documents double opt-in, a stored consent record with source, per-channel consent states, or the ability to switch profiling off per person. The only consent-adjacent facts are from the vendor's own privacy policy — which requires newsletter signup as consideration for ebooks, giveaways and test access — and its positives (7-day log deletion, stated subject rights) concern the website, not the product's profiling pipeline. 2 4
The Solution Architect
The product side offers exactly one line — "Rechtskonformes Adressmanagement" — while everything granular in the privacy policy governs SC-Networks' own website, not what Evalanche customers can configure: no consent record with source, no per-channel consent states, no per-contact tracking switch, no retention rule for contact data, and Scoring & Profiling with no suppression path evidenced. As the one who answers the access and erasure tickets, I see no tooling on this sheet. 2 4 1
The Skeptic
The product side offers only the slogan "Rechtskonformes Adressmanagement"; double opt-in, stored consent records, per-channel consent states, retention rules and per-person profiling suppression are all absent from the evidence. The vendor's own site trades newsletter sign-up for test access and ebooks while running Google Signals/Remarketing on the EU-US DPF — thinner than the ePrivacyseal they boast about for etracker. 4 1
CRM integration & data model
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The join that decides the implementation: how the platform and the CRM stay in agreement about who a person is, and what happens when they disagree.
0 — CSV import and export; no CRM integration and no identity resolution.
3 — One-way sync into a named CRM on a schedule, with duplicates resolved by hand and no conflict rules.
5 — Bidirectional sync with at least one major CRM, field mapping, deduplication rules, and a sync error log somebody can act on.
8 — Configurable conflict resolution per field, account and contact objects both modelled, custom objects supported, near-real-time sync with retry, and a documented API with rate limits.
10 — One record, two systems, no ambiguity: identity resolution across anonymous and known states, field-level ownership defined per system, replay of failed syncs, and a data model the customer can extend without vendor services.
The Demand Gen Lead
'Schnittstellen zu CRM & Co.' names no CRM, no sync direction, no field mapping, dedup or conflict rules — and the only API in evidence is a statistics export, not a data sync. 'CRM-zentrischer Lead-Flow' is a slogan until one system of record is named and the identity rules are written down. 2 1
The Sales Ops Manager
This is the join that decides the implementation and the evidence gives me one sentence: "Schnittstellen zu CRM & Co." plus a CRM-centric lead flow and a statistics-export API. No named CRM, no sync direction, no field mapping, no dedup rules, no configurable conflict resolution, no sync error log — I'd be inventing the ownership model myself. 2 1
The Data Protection Officer
"Schnittstellen zu CRM & Co." and a CRM-centric lead flow that keeps existing core systems is the whole story: no named CRM, no sync direction, no field mapping, no deduplication, no conflict rules, and the only API mentioned is a statistics export. The join that decides the implementation is undocumented, and where identity resolution stands is unknown — above CSV-only, below the one-way-sync anchor. 2 1
The Lifecycle Marketer
The CRM story is a pitch, not a mechanism: 'Schnittstellen zu CRM & Co.' and a 'CRM-zentrischer Lead-Flow', with no CRM named, no sync direction, no field mapping, no dedup or conflict rules, and the only API evidenced is a statistics export. The join that decides whether the implementation survives — who owns which field and what happens when the systems disagree — is entirely unevidenced, so I score by the absence. 2 1
The Solution Architect
"Schnittstellen zu CRM & Co." and "CRM-zentrischer Lead-Flow" name no CRM, no sync direction, no field mapping, no conflict rules, no dedup logic and no documented API with rate limits — the only concrete API is a statistics export. Identity resolution from anonymous visitor to known contact and a customer-extensible data model are exactly the two things that decide whether this survives month three, and the evidence is silent on both. 2 1
The Skeptic
"Schnittstellen zu CRM & Co." and "CRM-zentrischer Lead-Flow" claim integration without naming a single CRM, a sync direction, field mapping, deduplication or conflict rules; the only API in evidence is a statistics export. That is an interface in the brochure sense, not a data model two systems can agree on. 2 1
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where behavioural profiles of named EU residents are processed, who the contracting entity is, and which subprocessors see them. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; scored here as this buyer weighs it — which given the profiling is heavily.
0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated or non-EU, subprocessors unnamed, behavioural data leaving the EU with no stated basis.
3 — EU data residency for storage while tracking, sending or support access remain non-EU, or the contracting entity sits outside the EU.
5 — EU hosting as standard and an EU contracting entity, but parts of the chain — tracking scripts, AI scoring, analytics — are non-EU without an explained safeguard.
8 — EU hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, complete subprocessor list published, and any non-EU processing named with its legal basis.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: every profile, event and derived score processed in the EU by European subprocessors, certification published, and no transfer requiring a Schrems II argument to survive.
The Demand Gen Lead
A register-confirmed German entity and a platform claim of full German operation with ISO 27001 are genuinely solid, and I weight this heavily — but every published subprocessor belongs to the vendor's own website (including Google on a DPF basis), while the product's processing chain, infrastructure name and where the AI features run are unpublished. EU entity plus EU hosting minus an evidenced product chain lands just above the middle anchors. 2 3 4 1
The Sales Ops Manager
Despite the pipeline's unknowns, the imprint evidences a German contracting entity (Amtsgericht München, German VAT ID) and the product claims full German operation, ISO 27001, and an AVV with the host. But platform infrastructure and product subprocessors are unnamed, the AI features' processing location is unstated, and the vendor website itself leans on Google services — solidly rubric level 5 territory, not higher. 2 3 4 1
The Data Protection Officer
German hosting confirmed ("wird vollständig in Deutschland betrieben"), a German contracting entity in the Munich registry, ISO 27001, and an AVV with the hosting provider — the bones of rubric level 5 are there. But no platform subprocessor list is published anywhere in the evidence, the pipeline itself flags residency and subprocessor exposure as unconfirmed, and the vendor's own site runs US transfers under the DPF — so I cannot take the end-to-end claim on faith. 2 3 4 1
The Lifecycle Marketer
SC-Networks GmbH in Starnberg with a Munich register entry plus 'Made & Hosted in Germany' and ISO 27001 give a German contracting entity and claimed German hosting, but the product's infrastructure is unnamed, no product-level subprocessor list is published, and the vendor's own site runs Google Analytics, Signals and Tag Manager with only the DPF as stated basis. For behavioural profiles of named EU residents that is marketing language, not evidence — and the sovereignty pipeline itself found residency and subprocessor exposure unconfirmed. 2 3 4 1
The Solution Architect
German GmbH with registry entry and VAT ID, "DSGVO-konform, ISO 27001-zertifiziert und vollständig in Deutschland betrieben", Made & Hosted in Germany — entity and residency are solid. But the product's infrastructure is unnamed, no product subprocessor list is published, and the vendor's own web chain runs Google Signals, Remarketing and Tag Manager on the EU-US DPF, while the AI Content Framework's processing location is unstated — that's a Schrems II argument I'd rather not inherit. 2 3 4 1
The Skeptic
The contracting entity is verifiably German — SC-Networks GmbH, Starnberg, Amtsgericht München HRB 146573 — and the vendor states the platform is "vollständig in Deutschland betrieben". But the pipeline marked residency and subprocessor exposure unconfirmed: no infrastructure is named, no platform subprocessor list is published, and where the AI Content Framework processes data is a blank — which caps this at the anchor where unexplained parts of the chain linger. 2 3 4
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the real annual invoice for their contact base and send volume — including the tier where automation actually begins, overage, and mandatory onboarding — from public pages alone.
0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation, and onboarding fees are never mentioned.
3 — A contact-tier headline exists, but the tier where journeys, scoring or CRM sync begin is unstated, as is any mandatory implementation fee.
5 — Contact-tier prices public with billing period and send limits stated, but at least one commonly needed capability sits in an unpriced enterprise tier.
8 — Every tier priced publicly with contact and volume limits, feature boundaries, overage rates, onboarding costs, minimum term and VAT treatment stated.
10 — Complete price computability: annual invoice derivable for a given contact count, send volume and feature set, including overage, additional users and any implementation fee stated outright.
The Demand Gen Lead
The only pricing fact in the evidence is the word 'transparent' sitting next to zero numbers, with add-ons priced by conversation ('Du entscheidest, welche Add-ons sinnvoll sind'), a free-consultation funnel, and PowerPlan/Professional Service onboarding never priced. A buyer cannot compute even a rough annual invoice from these pages, which for a demand-gen budget owner is disqualifying. 2
The Sales Ops Manager
"Transparente Tarife ohne versteckte Kosten" appears on a page with not a single price: no tiers, no contact or send limits, no VAT treatment, and the six-step PowerPlan onboarding and Professional Service carry no costs. Every route to a number runs through a free consultation call — rubric level 0 with a transparency slogan bolted on. 2
The Data Protection Officer
"Transparente Tarife ohne versteckte Kosten" with no price, tier, contact limit or send volume on any captured page — the transparency is asserted, not published. PowerPlan onboarding and Professional Service are offered with no costs stated, so a buyer can compute nothing; the honest claim of transparency without a single number is what saves this from a clean zero. 2
The Lifecycle Marketer
The page claims 'transparente Tarife ohne versteckte Kosten' while stating no prices whatsoever; the only route to a number is a free consultation, and Professional Service onboarding plus the six-step PowerPlan are offered with no fee mentioned. This is the anchor-zero pattern exactly — I cannot compute any part of an annual invoice from public pages. 2 1
The Solution Architect
"Transparente Tarife ohne versteckte Kosten" appears on a page that states no price at all, the entry path is a free consultation funnel, and the Professional Service and six-step PowerPlan onboarding exist with costs never mentioned. This is rubric level 0 wearing a transparency slogan; I gave one point only because the tariff structure (Marketing Core plus add-ons) is at least named. 2
The Skeptic
The only pricing fact in existence is the word "transparent": "Evalanche bietet transparente Tarife ohne versteckte Kosten" with not one number, tier or contact staircase on any captured page. Every route to a price runs through the "kostenfreies Beratungsgespräch", while the six-step PowerPlan onboarding and Professional Service are described in loving detail with no cost attached — the mandatory-onboarding fee that never appears, because there is no pricing page for it to appear on. 2 1
European sovereignty — proven facts
3 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 | Incorporated in DE | 3/3 pts | 3 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | EU only ⚠ unverified | 3/3 pts | 12 Report an error |
| Subprocessors | EU only ⚠ unverified | 2/2 pts | 4 Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 2 Sep 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency. The claim sits on marketing/GDPR and security pages rather than in a data processing agreement, and the data-center operators are not named.
- Weak sourcing — Subprocessors. Only German credit agencies used for manual payment-risk checks are named as external processors, while the operators of the German data centres hosting Evalanche are not identified and website-only services (Mittwald hosting, etracker analytics) were excluded.
- 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.
- 58 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
- 14 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
- 14 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
- 6 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
- 4 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
- 4 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
- 2 pricing facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 hosting fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 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 (15)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.sc-networks.de Checked 15 Sep 2026 +2 earlier captures: 11 Sep 2026, 2 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Product page www.sc-networks.de Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Imprint www.sc-networks.de Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Privacy policy www.sc-networks.de Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Security / trust page — found from the homepage www.evalanche.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 6 Journeys & orchestration — found from sitemap www.evalanche.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Journeys & orchestration — found from sitemap www.evalanche.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Lead scoring, routing & lifecycle — found from sitemap www.evalanche.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Lead scoring, routing & lifecycle — found from sitemap www.evalanche.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Channels & personalisation — found from sitemap www.evalanche.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Channels & personalisation — found from sitemap www.evalanche.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Consent, tracking & profiling — found from sitemap www.evalanche.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Consent, tracking & profiling — found from sitemap www.evalanche.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 CRM integration & data model — found from sitemap www.evalanche.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 15 CRM integration & data model — found from sitemap www.evalanche.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →