whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Password Management

Uniqkey

EU-Made Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: 1 of 4 dimensions proven

0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.

by Uniqkey A/S · www.uniqkey.eu

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 DevOps Engineer

Weighted verdict

Would rather run the vault in the company's own data centre than trust another SaaS with root credentials. Wants a documented self-hosted deployment with backup and high availability, open-source code to read, a CLI and API for pipelines, and an export that loses nothing.

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

Scored by The DevOps Engineer

Encryption model & independent audits

How this is scored

What the vendor can prove about its security design: end-to-end encryption with named algorithms and key derivation, which fields are encrypted on the device and which are not, independent audits and penetration tests with published results, a bug bounty, and incident history disclosed.

0 — Security described in adjectives ("bank-grade", "military encryption") with no architecture, no audit and no statement of what the vendor can read.

3 — Encryption algorithms named and "zero knowledge" claimed, but no whitepaper, no statement of which fields stay unencrypted, and audits mentioned without dates, auditors or results.

5 — A published security whitepaper naming algorithms, key derivation and the client-side encryption model, a stated list of what is and is not encrypted (including URLs and metadata), and a named independent audit or certification (ISO 27001, SOC 2) with its date.

8 — Recurring independent penetration tests or code audits with reports or summaries published, a public bug bounty or vulnerability disclosure policy, past security incidents documented with their impact, and open-source clients or cryptography that can be reviewed.

10 — The design is verifiable end to end: full source or cryptographic design public, every field encrypted client-side including metadata, audits by named firms repeated yearly with full reports, a threat model that states what a compromise of the vendor's servers would expose, and incident post-mortems published.

Report an error

The DevOps Engineer

Algorithms are named — AES-256 and SHA-3 — and zero-knowledge is claimed with keys said never to leave the device, but the pitch wraps it in 'six layers of military-grade encryption'. We found no public information on a security whitepaper, key derivation, which fields remain unencrypted, or an audit carrying a date, auditor or results — the ISO 27001 mention appears as homepage copy with no scope or date, and the security-assessment page turned out to be a consulting offer rather than a report. 1 11 5

Report an error

Sharing, roles & recovery

How this is scored

How credentials are shared and governed across a company: shared vaults or collections, role-based permissions, view-only and time-limited access, admin account recovery, emergency access, and what happens to shared items when an employee leaves.

0 — Personal vaults only, or sharing by sending a password to another user with no permissions and no record.

3 — Shared folders with all-or-nothing access, no roles, and no stated process for recovering an account or reclaiming credentials from a departing employee.

5 — Shared vaults or collections with read, edit and manage permissions, groups and admin roles, an admin recovery mechanism documented with its key model, and offboarding that transfers a leaver's shared items.

8 — Granular permissions down to hiding the password while allowing autofill, time-limited and one-time sharing with external parties, emergency access with a waiting period, delegated administration per team or location, and approval workflows for sensitive items.

10 — Access is governed and provable: least-privilege defaults, recovery and emergency access designed so the vendor never holds a key and stated so, periodic access reviews supported in the product, and every grant, change and revocation attributable to a person.

Report an error

The DevOps Engineer

Sharing rises above folders: logins shared with entire groups in one go, time-limited sharing, restricted visibility of the actual password, and location-based access, alongside an admin-approved SSO recovery flow and SCIM-driven offboarding so access does not outlast employment. We found no public information on read/edit/manage permission tiers, emergency access with a waiting period, or approval workflows for sensitive items. 2 6 8

Report an error

SSO, directory sync & provisioning

How this is scored

How the vault fits into the company's identity stack: SSO with Entra ID, Okta or Google, and the key model behind an SSO unlock; SCIM or directory sync for joiners and leavers; MFA options including hardware keys; and passkey support for users and the vault itself.

0 — Each user creates an account by email; no SSO, no directory sync and no MFA beyond an app code.

3 — SSO available only to sign in to the admin console or on the top tier with no description of how the vault is then decrypted, and users provisioned by CSV invite.

5 — SSO with named identity providers (Entra ID, Okta, Google) documented with how the vault key is derived or released, SCIM or directory sync for provisioning and deprovisioning, and MFA including FIDO2 or hardware keys.

8 — SSO unlock designed so the vendor cannot derive the vault key and stated so, group sync driving vault permissions, automated suspension on deprovisioning, conditional access or device policies, and passkeys stored and used across platforms.

10 — Identity is integrated without trust shortcuts: the SSO key model published and independently reviewed, deprovisioning that revokes vault access and shared items immediately with a log entry, passwordless vault unlock with passkeys, and support for the customer's own key-management or trusted-device approval.

Report an error

The DevOps Engineer

Entra ID SSO is documented with the model stated that the identity provider only verifies access and never sees passwords, secrets or vault data, plus SCIM 2.0 lifecycle automation, Conditional Access with MFA, trusted locations, compliant devices and risk-based rules, configurable session lifetime, MDM and GPO, and passkeys with device-bound private keys. We found no public information on Okta or Google as identity providers, group sync driving vault permissions, or an independently reviewed key model behind the SSO unlock. 2 7 8

Report an error

Audit logs, policies & reporting

How this is scored

What an administrator and an auditor can see and enforce: event logs of access and changes, password health and breach reports, enforceable policies (master password, MFA, sharing, export), SIEM integration, and reports an ISO 27001 or NIS2 audit can use.

0 — No audit log and no admin policies; the administrator sees a user list.

3 — A basic activity list and a password-strength score, but no exportable log, no enforceable policies, and no record of who viewed or copied a shared credential.

5 — Event logs covering logins, item access, sharing and admin changes, exportable or available through an API, enforceable policies for master password and MFA, and password health and breach-monitoring reports.

8 — Native SIEM integration with named targets (Splunk, Microsoft Sentinel, Elastic or syslog), policies for sharing, export and browser-extension behaviour, log retention stated, and compliance reports aligned to ISO 27001, NIS2 or BSI IT-Grundschutz.

10 — Auditability is complete: every view, copy, autofill and permission change logged with user and device, logs tamper-evident and retained for a configurable period, alerting on anomalous access, and an auditor role that can read logs without access to secrets.

Report an error

The DevOps Engineer

The audit log records every user activity with user, action and timestamp — logins, access changes, admin actions — tracked in real time with step-by-step incident backtracking and framed for GDPR and NIS2 reporting, while enforceable policies cover stronger password requirements, mandatory 2FA and IP, time and geo restrictions, backed by breach monitoring and risk assessment. We found no public information on exporting logs or an API for them, SIEM integration, stated log retention, or records of who viewed a specific shared credential. 2 9 10

Report an error

Hosting choice, offline access & export

How this is scored

Where and how the vault runs and how the data leaves it: cloud region choice, a self-hosted or on-premises option, offline access during a vendor outage, client coverage across operating systems and browsers, and a complete, documented export and import path.

0 — Cloud only in an unstated region, no offline access, and no export or an export that drops attachments and shared items.

3 — Cloud with a region named, apps for common platforms, and an export in CSV only that leaves out attachments, folders, TOTP seeds or custom fields.

5 — An EU region or self-hosted option, offline read access on desktop and mobile, clients for Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS, Android and the major browsers, and an export that covers all item types including attachments.

8 — Both EU cloud and self-hosted or on-premises deployment documented, a status page with incident history, encrypted full-fidelity export and import from named competitors, and vault access continuing during an outage of the vendor's service.

10 — The customer can run and leave the vault on their own terms: self-hosting with documented high availability and backup, an open or documented export format that preserves structure, permissions and history, and a stated procedure for continued access if the vendor ends the service.

Report an error

The DevOps Engineer

European hosting is claimed across the site and offline access exists — a one-hour offline mode and locally encrypted device storage — but we found no public information on a self-hosted or on-premises deployment, which is what I would need before running the vault on our own hardware. 'Import and Export' appears as a feature name with no documented format, and we found no public information on export fidelity for attachments and item types, a status page with incident history, or client coverage per operating system. 1 2 7 11

Report an error

European sovereignty

How this is scored

Who the contracting entity and the parent company are, where vault data and metadata are hosted, and who the subprocessors are. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; end-to-end encryption narrows what a foreign authority could compel, but metadata, logs and the update channel for the client software remain in the vendor's hands, so the chain still counts.

0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated, and subprocessors unnamed.

3 — An EU data region offered while the contracting entity and parent are non-EU without a stated safeguard, or the subprocessor list is absent.

5 — EU hosting as standard or selectable and an EU contracting entity, but the parent company or parts of the chain (support, analytics, email, client distribution) are non-EU.

8 — EU hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, subprocessor list published with locations, a DPA covering vault metadata and logs, and a self-hosted option that removes the vendor from the data path.

10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: European ownership, entity, hosting and every subprocessor, certifications published (ISO 27001, BSI C5 or equivalent), and source code or builds verifiable so the client update channel is not a blind trust in the vendor.

Report an error

The DevOps Engineer

European positioning runs through the site — 'Everything stays protected in Europe' — and the terms are with Uniqkey A/S, but the privacy policy names no hosting provider or location and expressly contemplates exceptional transfers to processors outside the EU. Subprocessors appear only as purposes — hosting, system maintenance, email — and we found no public information on their names or locations, on ownership, or on a self-hosted option that would remove the vendor from the data path. The captured pages also give different signals on third-party transfer, with the homepage stating none and the policy describing processors. 1 3 4 7 8

Report an error

Pricing transparency

How this is scored

Whether a buyer can compute the real annual cost from public pages alone: price per user and tier, which features (SSO, SCIM, SIEM, self-hosting) sit in which tier, minimum seats, add-ons, and the minimum term.

0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.

3 — A starting price exists, but which business features (SSO, SCIM, audit logs) sit in which tier is unclear — the invoice is unknowable.

5 — Per-user tier prices public with the main features per tier, but at least one commonly needed piece (SSO, SIEM integration, self-hosting, minimum seats) is unpriced or "on request".

8 — Every tier priced publicly with its feature set and seat minimum, add-on prices listed, self-hosted licensing stated, minimum term and VAT treatment given.

10 — Complete price computability: annual invoice derivable for a given number of users, with every add-on, self-hosting licence, support level and renewal condition published.

Report an error

The DevOps Engineer

The captured pricing page names the modules and offers a business trial, but we found no public price figures of any kind, and the call to action is 'Start Business Trial Talk To An Expert'. With no per-user price, tier costs, seat minimums, term or VAT treatment found in the public captures, a buyer cannot compute an annual invoice; the only pricing-related statement we found is that personal use is not sold separately. 2 4 10

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

1 of 4 dimensions proven

Built only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.

Ownership Not determined — uncited Report an error
Data residency EU only ⚠ unverified 3/3 pts 1 Report an error
Subprocessors Not determined — uncited Report an error

Where this could be wrong

What we left out

A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.

Do you know more about Uniqkey? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (11)

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

  1. 1 Vendor homepage www.uniqkey.eu Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Pricing page www.uniqkey.eu Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Privacy policy www.uniqkey.eu Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Terms of service www.uniqkey.eu Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Encryption model & independent audits — found from sitemap www.uniqkey.eu Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Sharing, roles & recovery — found from sitemap www.uniqkey.eu Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 SSO, directory sync & provisioning — found from sitemap www.uniqkey.eu Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 SSO, directory sync & provisioning — found from sitemap www.uniqkey.eu Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Audit logs, policies & reporting — found from sitemap www.uniqkey.eu Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Audit logs, policies & reporting — found from sitemap www.uniqkey.eu Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  11. 11 Hosting choice, offline access & export — found from sitemap www.uniqkey.eu Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →