Property & WEG Management
Aareon Wodis
EU-Made Report an errorPanel 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 Aareon SE · www.aareon.com
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
Aareon Wodis is a Property Management System from Aareon whose captured public footprint amounts to five module names — Manage, Pay, Sustain, Engage, Connect — customer segments, and website legal and privacy disclosures; the contracting entity is Aareon Group GmbH, Mainz, HRB 53555. The strongest row on the table is sovereignty, clustering at 3-4 on the German entity, declared GDPR/BDSG processing and named US transfer mechanisms (DPF, SCCs) — though product hosting region and subprocessor list remain unknown. The weakest rows are functional: eigentümerversammlung & Beschluss-Sammlung sits at 0 (no meeting, voting or Beschluss-Sammlung fact), while wirtschaftsplan, Jahresabrechnung & Rücklage, maintenance, defects & contractors and documents, retention & handover run 0-1, the judges treating module names as marketing rather than features. The visible spread is owner & tenant self-service, 0-2: the Data Protection Officer credits a customer login plus 'Engage' as implying something owner-facing, while the Portfolio Manager and Advisory Board Member hold that a name is not a portal and the segment list says who buys, not what they can see. No price appears in the captured pages (pricing transparency 0, uncounted).
Speaks for it
- Sovereignty is the strongest row on the table at 3-4, anchored by German contracting entity Aareon Group GmbH (Mainz Local Court, HRB 53555) with GDPR/BDSG processing declared.
- US transfers for support are openly disclosed with the EU-US Data Privacy Framework and EU standard contractual clauses named as the legal basis.
- GDPR data-subject rights including access, erasure, portability and complaint to a supervisory authority are published in the privacy policy.
- A 'customer login' is confirmed by the privacy policy's technically-necessary-cookie note, the evidence's only concrete owner-facing access fact.
Held against it
- Eigentümerversammlung & Beschluss-Sammlung scores 0 — no convening, notice, voting arithmetic or Beschluss-Sammlung appears anywhere in the evidence.
- Wirtschaftsplan, Jahresabrechnung & Rücklage scores 0-1: no Wirtschaftsplan, Jahresabrechnung, distribution keys or segregated Rücklage is evidenced, and 'Pay' is a module name only.
- Maintenance, defects & contractors scores 0-1 on the 'Sustain' label alone, with no defect intake, work orders or statutory-inspection tracking in evidence.
- Documents, retention & handover scores 0-1: the only retention periods published cover cookies (1 year), logfiles (60 days) and job applications (6 months), not WEG records, and no handover export appears.
- Product hosting region and subprocessor list are unknown per the evidence, and even the vendor's own website transfers data to servers in the USA.
Best for
- You prioritise a German contracting entity with GDPR/BDSG processing and can pin down hosting region and subprocessors in contract negotiation.
- You are an enterprise housing-sector buyer whose sourcing already runs through sales conversations rather than public documentation.
Avoid if
- You need public proof of statutory WEG workflows — Jahresabrechnung, Beschluss-Sammlung, defect tracking, handover export — before shortlisting a product.
- Your procurement requires a published subprocessor list and a stated data residency before contact; both are unknown in the evidence.
The scores
Wirtschaftsplan, Jahresabrechnung & Rücklage
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The statutory financial cycle: business plan, annual settlement in the form the law and the BGH require, distribution keys, and the separate handling of reserve funds held in trust for the community.
0 — General bookkeeping only; no Wirtschaftsplan, no Jahresabrechnung, no distribution keys, reserves treated as ordinary balances.
3 — Templates that help a human produce the documents, with distribution keys entered by hand and no separation of the Rücklage.
5 — Wirtschaftsplan and Jahresabrechnung generated from the ledger with configurable distribution keys (MEA, units, consumption), and reserves booked separately.
8 — Settlement in the post-2021 BGH form with the Abrechnungsspitze shown separately, Vermögensbericht produced, heating-cost apportionment per HeizkostenV integrated, owner-change apportionment mid-year handled, and Hausgeld arrears tracked with dunning.
10 — The whole financial year is discharged inside the system: multi-community bookkeeping with strict per-WEG separation, trust accounting for reserves with its own reporting, settlement documents an accountant would sign, and the arithmetic auditable back to individual postings.
The WEG Administrator
Five module names are the entire financial evidence — no Wirtschaftsplan, no Jahresabrechnung in BGH form, no distribution keys, no separate handling of the Rücklage. An enterprise housing ERP probably has some of this, but the evidence evidences none of it, and I judge a product by what survives the March run, not by what the vendor probably builds. 1
The Advisory Board Member
The evidence offers five marketing module names (Manage, Pay, Sustain, Engage, Connect) and not one word on Wirtschaftsplan, Jahresabrechnung, distribution keys or a separately booked Rücklage. I cannot trace a single Euro from an invoice to the settlement because nothing here evidences that such a settlement exists — even general bookkeeping for WEG purposes is unevidenced. 1
The Accountant
Nothing here shows a Wirtschaftsplan, a Jahresabrechnung, distribution keys or a segregated Rücklage — the only financial signal is a module named 'Pay' inside a 'Property Management System', which is payments processing at best. No Abrechnungsspitze, no HeizkostenV apportionment, no trust accounting for reserves is evidenced anywhere, so this sits barely above rubric level 0. 1
The Portfolio Manager
The only product line I get is 'Property Management System Manage Pay Sustain Engage Connect' — no Wirtschaftsplan, no Jahresabrechnung, no distribution keys, nothing on a separately booked Rücklage. 'Pay' is a marketing name, not evidence of the statutory financial cycle, so this sits at the 0 anchor. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The only product evidence is a marketing module list ("Manage, Pay, Sustain, Engage, Connect"); no Wirtschaftsplan, Jahresabrechnung, distribution keys or Rücklage separation are evidenced anywhere, and a module named "Pay" is not trust accounting. 1
The Skeptic
The evidence's entire financial case is a module named 'Pay' inside a 'Property Management System' — no Wirtschaftsplan, no Jahresabrechnung in the post-2021 BGH form, no distribution keys, no word on whether the Rücklage is separated at all. A module name is not a feature; the statutory financial cycle is unevidenced, which sits at the bottom of the scale, nudged to 1 only because a property-management product family demonstrably exists. 1
Eigentümerversammlung & Beschluss-Sammlung
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Convening, running and recording the owners' meeting — including the resolution register the law requires the administrator to maintain, and the majority arithmetic that decides whether a resolution stands.
0 — No meeting support; invitations and minutes are written elsewhere and the Beschluss-Sammlung is a document somewhere.
3 — Invitation templates and a place to store minutes, but no agenda structure, no voting support and no maintained resolution register.
5 — Agenda-driven invitations respecting the notice period, attendance and proxy recording, voting with the common majority types, and a Beschluss-Sammlung kept as a numbered register.
8 — Quorum and majority computed per resolution type including MEA-weighted and qualified majorities, proxies and voting restrictions handled, minutes generated from the recorded votes, and the register maintained continuously with amendment and invalidation notes as § 24 (7) requires.
10 — The meeting is conducted in the system: hybrid or written circulation procedures supported with their own legal rules, contested resolutions flagged within the challenge period, the register complete and exportable as evidence, and every entry traceable to the meeting that produced it.
The WEG Administrator
The evidence contains no fact about convening, agendas, proxies, majority arithmetic or a Beschluss-Sammlung — the register the law puts on my desk is simply not addressed. rubric level 0: invitations and minutes would live elsewhere. 1
The Advisory Board Member
Nothing on convening, notice periods, agenda structure, voting arithmetic or a numbered Beschluss-Sammlung — the register I am answerable for checking is simply absent. The 'Engage' module name is the closest hint, and a name is not a register. 1
The Accountant
The evidence is completely silent on meetings: no invitation, agenda, proxy, voting arithmetic or Beschluss-Sammlung appears in any captured page. For a vendor claiming to serve 'Owners' and 'Managers' to publish nothing on the resolution register confirms the anchor-0 case rather than refuting it. 1
The Portfolio Manager
Not one word on convening, notice periods, agendas, voting, majority arithmetic or a maintained Beschluss-Sammlung anywhere in the registry. No meeting support is evidenced at all. 1
The Data Protection Officer
Nothing on convening, notice periods, agendas, voting, majority arithmetic or a maintained Beschluss-Sammlung appears in the captured pages — the evidence is silent on the entire meeting lifecycle, which lands at the bottom anchor. 1 2
The Skeptic
Not one word on convening, notice periods, minutes, majority arithmetic, or the Beschluss-Sammlung the law obliges the Verwalter to keep — the module list doesn't even gesture at meetings. By this sheet the capability does not exist, and that is the definition of anchor zero. 1
Owner & tenant self-service
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How an owner exercises their right to see the records, and how much routine correspondence the portal removes: statements, documents, meeting papers, defect reporting.
0 — No portal; every request is answered by email or post.
3 — A document download area with no per-owner scoping — everyone sees the same folder, or access is by emailed link.
5 — Per-owner login showing their own statements, documents and meeting papers, with a defect or request form that reaches the administrator.
8 — Owners and tenants scoped separately with correct visibility, meeting papers and voting available in the portal, defect reports with status visible to the reporter, and consumption or arrears shown per unit.
10 — The portal discharges the disclosure duty: every record an owner is entitled to see available on demand with an access log, tenant and owner views strictly separated, notifications for statutory deadlines, and enough self-service that routine correspondence largely disappears.
The WEG Administrator
The closest evidence is a cookie note that a 'customer login' exists and a module named Engage; neither shows per-owner scoping, statements on demand, meeting papers or a defect form. As evidenced, every Einsichtsverlangen lands back on my inbox. 1 2
The Advisory Board Member
The imprint lists 'Owners' and 'Users' among customer segments, but that says who buys, not what they can see. No per-owner login, no statements, no meeting papers, no defect form — every disclosure would have to be requested by email or post. 1
The Accountant
The only access-related facts are a 'customer login' cookie on the vendor website and an undecoded 'Engage' module name — not one word on per-owner scoping, statements, meeting papers or a defect form. An owner's right to inspect their records on demand is nowhere addressed. 1 2
The Portfolio Manager
The segment list names 'Owners' and 'Users' and there is a module called 'Engage', but a name is not a portal: no per-owner login, no statements, no meeting papers, no defect form with status is evidenced. By default on this record every owner request lands on my staff by email, which is the 0 anchor. 1
The Data Protection Officer
A customer login exists ("technically necessary cookies (e.g. customer login)") and an "Engage" module with "Owners" and "Users" as segments, so something owner-facing is implied. But per-owner scoping, strictly separated tenant views and statements are all unevidenced — and for this buyer, unproven visibility separation is unproven data protection. 1 2
The Skeptic
'Owners' and 'Users' appear in the customer segments and a module called 'Engage' exists — that is the whole case for a portal, and it is a marketing noun, not a login. No per-owner scoping, no statements, no defect form, no meeting papers in evidence; the single point acknowledges that owner-facing roles are at least named. 1
Maintenance, defects & contractors
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The building side: defect intake and tracking, recurring maintenance obligations, contractor assignment, and the evidence trail when something goes wrong.
0 — Defects arrive by phone and live in a notebook; no maintenance schedule.
3 — A ticket or note list per property, contractors contacted outside the system, no recurring maintenance calendar.
5 — Defect records per unit or property with status and photos, contractor assignment with a work order, and a recurring maintenance schedule with reminders.
8 — Warranty and Gewährleistung periods tracked against the responsible trade, statutory inspections (lift, heating, fire safety, drinking-water) scheduled with proof of completion stored, quotes and invoices linked to the defect, and cost allocated to the correct account.
10 — A defensible operating record: every obligation, inspection and defect with its evidence and dates, contractor performance visible, budget consumption against the Wirtschaftsplan tracked live, and a history that answers the question of what the administrator knew and when.
The WEG Administrator
A module called Sustain hints at maintenance thinking but the evidence confirms no defect tracking, no work orders, no recurring-obligation calendar and no stored proof of statutory inspections. I cannot schedule a lift or drinking-water inspection on evidence this thin. 1
The Advisory Board Member
No defect intake, no recurring maintenance calendar, no contractor assignment or work orders anywhere in the evidence. 'Sustain' suggests maintenance, but I will not score a suggestion. 1
The Accountant
No defect intake, maintenance calendar, contractor work order or statutory inspection tracking is evidenced; the module names are marketing labels without a single captured description. The silence is the whole answer — nothing distinguishes this from a notebook by the phone. 1
The Portfolio Manager
'Sustain' is brochure naming, not a workflow: no defect intake, no contractor routing, no recurring maintenance calendar, no statutory inspections with stored proof. I need lift, heating, fire-safety and drinking-water inspections scheduled with evidence or the product is dead to me — nothing here even gestures at it. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The only trace is the module label "Sustain"; defect records, contractor assignment, recurring maintenance, statutory inspections and Gewährleistung tracking are all unevidenced. 1
The Skeptic
A module named 'Sustain' is the only whiff of the building side — no defect intake with status, no recurring maintenance calendar, no statutory inspection tracking with stored proof, no contractor work orders anywhere in the capture. I award one point for the plausible hint and no more, because a hint is all a Verwalter would be buying on this evidence. 1
Documents, retention & handover
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The archive and the exit. A Verwalter's appointment is finite by law, and the records belong to the community — so handover is a statutory event, not a support ticket.
0 — Documents live on a shared drive; no retention rules, and handover means copying folders.
3 — Central document storage per property with folders and upload, but no versioning, no retention policy and no defined handover export.
5 — Structured document management per property and unit with search, retention periods stated, and a documented export of a community's records.
8 — Full-text search across the archive, version history, documents linked to the resolutions and settlements that reference them, and a complete handover package (ledger, register, documents, master data) in open formats.
10 — Handover is a first-class feature rather than an obstacle: a complete, structured export a successor administrator can actually load, retention executed per statutory period, an access log over the archive, and no commercial friction placed in the way of a community leaving.
The WEG Administrator
The only retention periods on record apply to cookies, server logfiles and job applications — website artifacts, not community records. No versioning, no document links to settlements or resolutions, and no handover export: when my appointment ends, this sheet leaves me with copied folders. 2
The Advisory Board Member
The only retention facts in the evidence concern cookies (1 year), logfiles (60 days) and job applications (6 months) — website housekeeping, not the community's archive. Nothing on versioning, statutory retention of WEG records, or a defined handover export a successor Verwalter could actually load. 2
The Accountant
Document archive, retention of community records and a defined handover export are all unevidenced; the only retention periods published concern website cookies (1 year), logfiles (60 days) and job applications (6 months), not WEG records. Handover as the statutory event § 26 WEG makes of it does not appear at all. 1 2
The Portfolio Manager
The only retention facts concern website cookies, logfiles and job applications — nothing about community records. No archive structure, no retention periods for WEG documents, no versioning, no handover export; handover would mean copying folders. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
The only retention rules in evidence govern cookies (1 year), webserver logfiles (60 days) and job applications (6 months) — website housekeeping, not the community's archive. No document management, versioning, handover export or access log over records exists in the evidence. 2
The Skeptic
The only retention periods published are 60 days for server logfiles, 6 months for job applications, and a year for a cookie-consent cookie — that describes the marketing stack, not the community's archive. No structured document management, no versioning, no retention policy for WEG records, no handover export: handover here remains a folder-copy, which is anchor zero. 1 2
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where the community's financial and personal records live, who the contracting entity is, and which subprocessors touch them. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; scored here as this buyer weighs it.
0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated or non-EU, subprocessors unnamed.
3 — EU hosting offered as an option while the contracting entity is non-EU, or the subprocessor list is absent.
5 — EU hosting as standard and an EU contracting entity, but parts of the chain — document OCR, AI features, support tooling — are non-EU without an explained safeguard.
8 — German or EU hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, complete subprocessor list published, any non-EU processing named with its legal basis.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: vendor, entity, hosting and every subprocessor European, certification published, and an export that keeps the community compliant for the full retention period after the appointment ends.
The WEG Administrator
The contracting entity is German, but where the product itself hosts is unstated, the subprocessor list is absent, and the vendor's own policy names US transfers for support via DPF/SCCs and Hubspot functions on US servers. Ownership under an Advent-led consortium is unconfirmed — community ledgers don't leave Europe on paper this incomplete. 1 2
The Advisory Board Member
The contracting entity is German — Aareon Group GmbH, Mainz, HRB 53555 — and GDPR/BDSG processing is declared. But the product's own data residency and subprocessor list are unknown; all the evidence shows is the marketing site on Hubspot in Germany with 'international transfer, including servers in the USA' secured by SCCs and the Privacy Framework, so I still cannot say where the community's books would sit. 1 2
The Accountant
The contracting entity is German (Aareon Group GmbH, Mainz, HRB 53555) with GDPR/BDSG processing declared, which is real — but the product's hosting region is unstated and no subprocessor list exists; only the website's Hubspot/AWS/Google chain is named, and support data goes to the USA under DPF/SCCs. rubric level 3's 'subprocessor list absent' holds, nudged slightly up by the clean DE entity and named transfer mechanism. 1 2
The Portfolio Manager
A German contracting entity with a GDPR/BDSG framework gets the floor above zero, but the subprocessor list is absent and the only hosting fact is the marketing site on HubSpot with US transfers under DPF/SCCs — where the ERP itself and the communities' ledgers run is unstated. That matches the anchor: subprocessors unnamed, data residency unknown; the Advent-led ownership noted in provenance adds nothing verifiable. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
Contracting entity and controller are German (Aareon Group GmbH, Mainz, HRB 53555) with GDPR/BDSG claimed, but product hosting and the subprocessor list are unknown, and even the vendor's own website transfers data to US servers under DPF/SCCs — I cannot tell where an owner's file or an invoice would actually travel. 1 2
The Skeptic
The contracting entity is German with GDPR/BDSG processing stated, and US transfers for support are at least named with DPF and SCCs as the legal basis — more than many vendors admit. But the product's hosting, its subprocessor list and the vendor's ownership are all unknown; the Hubspot/AWS/Google facts describe the website, not Wodis, so I land between the EU-entity and missing-subprocessor anchors. 1 2
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether an administrator can compute the real annual cost for the units under management — including modules, per-community fees and setup — from public pages alone.
0 — No public prices at all; every quote is a sales conversation.
3 — A per-unit or per-community headline exists, but modules, minimum terms, setup or migration fees are unstated.
5 — Per-unit or per-community prices public with billing period stated, but at least one commonly needed piece (portal, accounting module, document storage) sits in an unpriced bundle.
8 — Every tier and module priced publicly with per-unit maths, minimum term, setup and migration costs and VAT treatment stated; only genuinely custom enterprise work lacks a number.
10 — Complete price computability: annual invoice derivable for a given number of units and communities including every module, with no per-seat surprises and any exit or export fee stated outright.
The WEG Administrator
Not one price on the captured pages — module names only, no per-unit or per-community figure, no term, no setup or migration cost. For forty communities I cannot compute even a rough annual invoice from public pages, which is the definition of rubric level 0. 1
The Advisory Board Member
No price appears anywhere in the captured pages — not per unit, not per community, no modules, no terms, no setup. An administrator cannot compute even a rough annual cost for the units under management from public material. 1
The Accountant
Not a single price, per-unit rate, minimum term, setup or migration fee appears anywhere in the captured pages — the annual cost for a given stock of units and communities is incomputable in public. Every quote is a sales conversation; that is rubric level 0 exactly. 1
The Portfolio Manager
No price, per-unit figure, billing period, minimum term, setup or migration cost appears anywhere in the imprint or privacy policy. Every quote is a sales conversation, which is the definition of the 0 anchor. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
Neither captured page contains any price, per-unit fee, billing period, term, setup or migration cost; the real annual cost for a given portfolio is not computable from public pages alone. 1 2
The Skeptic
No price appears anywhere in the captured pages — no per-unit rate, no per-community fee, no minimum term, no setup or migration cost. An administrator cannot compute even the shape of the annual invoice without a sales conversation, which is anchor zero by definition. 1
European sovereignty — proven facts
1 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 | 1 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 30 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 — Subprocessors. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- We found no public information on pricing on the pages we read (aareon.com/legal-notice, aareon.com/privacy-policy, aareon.com/compliance). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- 1 compliance fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 subprocessors fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 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 (3)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Imprint www.aareon.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Privacy policy www.aareon.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Security / trust page www.aareon.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →