whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Property & WEG Management

ADIVA

Provenance unknown Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: not determined

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

by Wolters Kluwer Deutschland GmbH · www.adiva.de

Report an error on this page Is this your product? →

Link to this page

ADIVA: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai ADIVA: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai (dark)

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.

ADIVA at a glance

Vendor
Wolters Kluwer Deutschland 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 ADIVA 0/5, the mean of 6 judges. ADIVA is listed under Property & WEG Management with vendor Wolters Kluwer Deutschland GmbH, but the single captured page is a notice that the adiva.de domain stands for sale by its owner — anonymous negotiation on request, a transfer by auth-code supervised by an escrow team, payment released to the seller only after transfer, verified by SEG HOST. how scores are made
As of
Vendor pages captured 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources

ADIVA alternatives, European ones first →

Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.

The Accountant

Weighted verdict

Prepares the settlement and answers for its form. Cares that the Abrechnungsspitze is shown separately, that the Rücklage is genuinely segregated trust money rather than a labelled balance, and that heating costs apportion per HeizkostenV without a spreadsheet.

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

Scored by The Accountant

Panel median The Accountant This judge’s scores over the panel median. Each label opens its reasoning below.
Scores per criterion, in stars out of 5
Criterion Panel median The Accountant
Wirtschaftsplan, Jahresabrechnung & Rücklage 0 of 5 0 of 5
Eigentümerversammlung & Beschluss-Sammlung 0 of 5 0 of 5
Owner & tenant self-service 0 of 5 0 of 5
Maintenance, defects & contractors 0 of 5 0 of 5
Documents, retention & handover 0 of 5 0 of 5
European sovereignty 0 of 5 0 of 5
Pricing transparency 0 of 5 0 of 5

Wirtschaftsplan, Jahresabrechnung & Rücklage

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.

Report an error

The Accountant

The single capture is a domain-for-sale page; we found no public information on a Wirtschaftsplan, a Jahresabrechnung, distribution keys, or any separate booking of the Rücklage. There is no ledger in evidence to audit, so no settlement exists for an accountant to sign. 1

Report an error

Eigentümerversammlung & Beschluss-Sammlung

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.

Report an error

The Accountant

We found no public information on invitations, agenda structure, majority arithmetic or a maintained Beschluss-Sammlung; the captured page concerns domain escrow and anonymous negotiation of a URL. Every meeting duty would be discharged outside anything the captured page shows. 1

Report an error

Owner & tenant self-service

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.

Report an error

The Accountant

No owner or tenant portal appears in the capture; the page speaks of discretion, escrow and a callback service for domain buyers. We found no public information on per-owner statements, meeting papers or defect reporting. 1

Report an error

Maintenance, defects & contractors

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.

Report an error

The Accountant

We found no public information on defect intake, recurring maintenance obligations or contractor assignment — the capture describes a transfer via Auth-Code, not a work order. No inspection dates, no warranty tracking, no evidence trail of any kind. 1

Report an error

Documents, retention & handover

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.

Report an error

The Accountant

The capture advertises a transfer with 100% success since 2011 — for a domain, not for a community's ledger, register and archive. We found no public information on document storage, retention periods or a structured export a successor administrator could load. 1

Report an error

European sovereignty

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.

Report an error

The Accountant

No sovereignty attributes are on record; we found no public information on hosting location, the contracting entity behind any software, or subprocessors — the only operator named is the domain verifier SEG HOST. Hosting unstated and subprocessors unnamed is what the evidence leaves me with. 1

Report an error

Pricing transparency

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.

Report an error

The Accountant

We found no public prices at all: the capture states the domain stands for sale by its holder but quotes no figure, and nothing about software tiers, modules, terms, setup or VAT. An administrator cannot compute an annual cost for the units under management from this. 1

Report an error

Questions about ADIVA

Is ADIVA European?

Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where ADIVA is based.

Where does ADIVA store data?

Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.

Does ADIVA have a free plan?

Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.

What are the best alternatives to ADIVA?

As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates Condomana (3/5), Immoware24 (2.5/5) and etg24 (2.5/5) highest among the other 18 Property & WEG Management 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 Condomana (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: ADIVA alternatives.

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 ADIVA? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (1)

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

  1. 1 Vendor page www.adiva.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →