Property & WEG Management
Agoranext
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Agoranext SAS · www.agoranext.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.
Agoranext at a glance
- Vendor
- Agoranext SAS
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 26 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 26 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 26 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Agoranext 0.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Agoranext, from Agoranext SAS, is a general office suite — messaging, a secure browser, a word processor, plus a spreadsheet, presentations and an antivirus still marked coming soon — listed under property and WEG management, and on most criteria the judges found no public information. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 26 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 27 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Agoranext, from Agoranext SAS, is a general office suite — messaging, a secure browser, a word processor, plus a spreadsheet, presentations and an antivirus still marked coming soon — listed under property and WEG management, and on most criteria the judges found no public information. WEG accounting, assembly and resolutions, and owner self-service each sit at 0; maintenance and defects at 0-1 and documents and handover at 0-2, with no public information on business plans, annual settlements, owners' meetings, voting, owner portals, defect tracking or handover exports. The weight sits in two categories: sovereignty at 4-6, where the vendor states hosting in France, native GDPR compliance, data staying in Europe and a French contracting entity developed by Arkendia, while the judges found no public information on named infrastructure, subprocessors or certification; and pricing transparency at 5-7, on three public per-user tiers billed monthly with 'Annuel −20 %' and 'Sans engagement'. The score spreads are narrow and the flagged split check flagged none. The vendor states subscriptions are not yet open to order.
Speaks for it
- Sovereignty scores 4-6 on the vendor's stated hosting in France, native GDPR compliance, data staying in Europe and a French contracting entity developed by Arkendia
- Pricing transparency scores 5-7, with Essentiel at 5 € / utilisateur / mois, Pro at 10 € / utilisateur / mois and Business at 16 € / utilisateur / mois, all billed monthly
- 'Annuel −20 %', 'Sans engagement' and one per-user subscription covering all tools, with no per-module pricing
- Documents have a modest home in a word processor compatible with existing documents plus storage of 10, 50 or unlimited GB by tier
Held against it
- WEG accounting, assembly and resolutions and owner self-service each sit at 0, with no public information on business plans, annual settlements, distribution keys, owners' meetings, voting, resolution registers or owner portals
- Maintenance and defects sits at 0-1, with no public information on defect intake, recurring maintenance schedules, contractor assignment or statutory inspections, the nearest feature being shared tasks inside a messenger still marked coming soon
- Documents and handover sits at 0-2, with storage a per-user quota and no public information on per-property structure, version history, retention periods or a handover export
- Of the six roadmap tools, only the browser and the word processor are marked available, with the messenger, spreadsheet, presentations and antivirus still marked coming soon
- Subscriptions are not yet open to order, with VAT treatment and any setup or migration costs unstated
Best for
- You are buying general per-user office tooling for an internal team and weight the stated France hosting, native GDPR compliance and European data residency over property-specific functions
- You want one publicly priced subscription per user, all tools included with no per-module pricing and no commitment, for word processing and browsing today while other tools remain coming soon
- You need transparent, computable per-seat costs, with every tier public and billed monthly
Avoid if
- You must run the statutory WEG financial cycle — the vendor describes a team office suite whose spreadsheet is still marked coming soon, and the judges found no public information on settlements, distribution keys or reserve funds
- You must convene owners' meetings, run voting arithmetic and maintain a resolution register
- You need owners or tenants to log in for statements, meeting papers or a defect form reaching the administrator — the single sign-on described serves a company's collaborators
- You need a defined handover export of a community's records to a successor administrator — storage appears only as per-user quota by tier
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Wirtschaftsplan, Jahresabrechnung & Rücklage | 0 of 5 |
| Eigentümerversammlung & Beschluss-Sammlung | 0 of 5 |
| Owner & tenant self-service | 0 of 5 |
| Maintenance, defects & contractors | 0 of 5 |
| Documents, retention & handover | 0.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 2.5 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 3 of 5 |
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
The vendor's own description is a team suite — messaging, navigation, word processing, presentations, security — and we found no public information on a Wirtschaftsplan, a Jahresabrechnung, distribution keys or separate reserve-fund accounting. Even the spreadsheet is marked as coming soon, so my March settlement run would rest on nothing here. 1
The Advisory Board Member
The captured pages describe messaging, browsing, office tools and antivirus for teams; we found no public information on a Wirtschaftsplan, a Jahresabrechnung in the statutory form, distribution keys, or any separate handling of the Rücklage. The only arithmetic on the roadmap is a spreadsheet still marked 'coming soon', and even that is generic tooling with no connection to community accounting I could follow back to an invoice. 1
The Accountant
We found no public information on a business plan, an annual settlement in the legally required form, distribution keys, or the separate handling of reserves; the pages describe a general productivity suite whose spreadsheet is still marked as coming soon. Nothing shows an Abrechnungsspitze presented separately, reserves held as segregated trust money, or heating costs apportioned per HeizkostenV, so this sits at the bottom of the scale. 1
The Portfolio Manager
For a portfolio my size I need the statutory financial cycle end to end, and I found no public information on a Wirtschaftsplan, a Jahresabrechnung, distribution keys or separate reserve handling. The captured pages describe a general office suite whose spreadsheet tool is still marked as coming soon, which at best lets a human keep books. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pages describe a suite of messaging, browser, documents, spreadsheets, presentations and antivirus tools, and we found no public information on a business plan, a settlement in the legally required form, distribution keys or separate handling of reserve funds. For a system that would hold owners' bank details and arrears, the pages evidence nothing of the statutory financial cycle at all. 1
The Skeptic
The captured pages describe a general office suite — messaging, browser, word processor, and a spreadsheet still marked coming soon — and we found no public information on a business plan, annual settlement in the legally required form, distribution keys, or separate reserve-fund accounting. Nothing in the material addresses the statutory financial cycle at all. 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
We found no public information on convening owners' meetings, notice periods, attendance and proxy recording, voting arithmetic or a maintained resolution register; the messaging and shared-task modules shown are generic team collaboration. The Beschluss-Sammlung the law places on me would have to live somewhere else entirely. 1
The Advisory Board Member
We found no public information on convening an owners' meeting, agendas, notice periods, proxies, voting or a maintained Beschluss-Sammlung. As the owner who keeps the resolution register current, I see nothing on these pages that would maintain it or compute a majority. 1
The Accountant
We found no public information on convening an owners' meeting, agenda structure, voting, quorum arithmetic, or a maintained resolution register with amendment and invalidation notes. The closest thing on the pages is team chat and shared tasks, which is collaboration tooling, not a meeting record. 1
The Portfolio Manager
I found no public information on convening an owners' meeting, agenda handling, proxy or majority arithmetic, or a resolution register. The only meeting-adjacent material is team messaging and shared tasks aimed at internal collaborators, which is where invitations and minutes would have to be written elsewhere. 1
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public information on convening or running an owners' meeting, on voting and majority arithmetic, or on the resolution register the law requires. The nearest capability on the pages is a messaging tool with channels, direct messages and shared tasks for team collaboration, and we found no public information on agendas, proxies, quorum or a numbered register. 1
The Skeptic
The published material covers channels, direct messages and shared tasks, and we found no public information on convening owners' meetings, notice periods, voting or majority arithmetic, or a maintained resolution register with amendment and invalidation notes. 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 pages describe a single sign-on for collaborators across the suite, but we found no public information on an owner or tenant portal, per-owner statements or meeting papers, or a defect and request form. Nothing here lets an owner exercise the right to see the records. 1
The Advisory Board Member
The single sign-on advertised is for a team suite, and the messenger with shared tasks is collaborator tooling still marked 'coming soon'; we found no public information on per-owner logins, statements, meeting papers or a defect form reaching an administrator. For my right to inspect the records, the pages show no scoping of owners or tenants at all. 1
The Accountant
No owner or tenant portal is evidenced; the single sign-on described serves a company's collaborators across the suite, and we found no public information on per-owner logins, personal statements, meeting papers, or a defect form reaching an administrator. Every owner request would have to travel through ordinary channels. 1
The Portfolio Manager
Single sign-on across the suite is advertised for collaborators, but we found no public information on a per-owner or per-tenant login, per-owner statements, meeting papers, or a defect and request form reaching the administrator. Every routine request would land on my staff by email or post. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The single sign-on described serves a team's collaborators across the suite, and we found no public information on an owner or tenant portal of any kind. For people who never chose the vendor, nothing on the pages evidences separate visibility for statements, arrears or documents between owners and tenants, nor an access log over who consulted what. 1
The Skeptic
The collaboration features are described for internal collaborators of an organisation, and we found no public information on an owner or tenant portal, per-owner statements, meeting papers, or a defect form reaching an administrator. 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
The closest the pages come is shared tasks and a team dashboard inside a messaging module itself marked as coming soon; we found no public information on defect records per unit, contractor work orders, or statutory inspection scheduling. My lift, heating and fire-safety obligations would leave no traceable record. 1
The Advisory Board Member
We found no public information on defect intake, recurring maintenance schedules, statutory inspections or contractor assignment. The nearest item is 'tâches partagées' inside a messenger that has not launched, and the text about it says nothing about buildings. 1
The Accountant
We found no public information on defect intake, recurring maintenance calendars, contractor assignment with work orders, or statutory inspection and warranty tracking. The shared-task list is a generic to-do board rather than a per-property ticket system, so there is no operating record to defend. 1
The Portfolio Manager
The only defect-adjacent feature on the pages is shared tasks and a team dashboard in the messaging tool. We found no public information on defect records per property or unit, contractor assignment with work orders, statutory inspection scheduling with stored proof, or a recurring maintenance calendar — the trail I run inspections on is not in evidence. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The 'Lock' on the pages is a Windows antivirus tied to the suite account, and we found no public information on defect intake, recurring maintenance calendars, statutory inspections or contractor assignment. Nothing here would answer what the administrator knew, and when, about a building's obligations. 1
The Skeptic
We found no public information on defect intake, recurring maintenance schedules, contractor assignment, or statutory inspections with proof of completion; the closest feature is shared tasks inside a messaging tool that is itself still marked coming soon. 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
Storage appears only as quota per subscription tier — '10 Go de stockage', '50 Go de stockage', 'Stockage illimité' — alongside a word processor, and we found no public information on per-property or per-unit document structure, versioning, retention periods or a handover export. When my appointment ends, these pages give me no answer for the community's records. 1
The Advisory Board Member
The tiers name storage amounts — 10 Go, 50 Go, illimité — and a word processor compatible with existing documents, so documents have a home of some kind; we found no public information on per-property or per-unit structure, search, versioning, retention periods or a defined handover export. When my administrator's appointment ends, I cannot see from these pages that the community's records would leave in a form a successor could actually load. 1
The Accountant
Generic cloud storage exists in tiered gigabytes alongside a word processor, which amounts to little more than a shared drive. We found no public information on per-property or per-unit document structure, search across an archive, version history, retention periods, or a defined handover export for a community leaving. 1
The Portfolio Manager
The suite advertises a word processor and storage of 10, 50 and unlimited gigabytes depending on tier. We found no public information on structured archives per property or unit, retention periods, version history, or a defined handover export of a community's records to a successor administrator. 1
The Data Protection Officer
Collaborative documents and storage tiers of 10, 50 and unlimited gigabytes are described, but scoped to teams rather than properties or units. We found no public information on retention periods that actually execute, version history, full-text search over an archive, an access log, or a defined export a successor administrator could load — and handover of a community's records is a statutory event, not a support ticket. 1
The Skeptic
Documents exist as generic per-user storage with quota tiers alongside a word processor, but we found no public information on retention periods, version history, a structured per-community archive, or any defined handover export a successor administrator could load. 1
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 vendor states hosting in France with native GDPR compliance, that data stays in Europe, a French contracting entity, and development in France by Arkendia — EU hosting as standard and an EU entity, which I credit. I found no public information on the hosting infrastructure by name, any subprocessor list, or certification, so the chain my communities' records would travel is asserted but not evidenced. 1
The Advisory Board Member
The vendor states hosting in France with native GDPR compliance, that data stays in Europe, and a French design origin — a reasonable start for a community's records. But the infrastructure is not named, we found no public information on subprocessors or certification, and no independent confirmation is on record, so the whole claim rests on the vendor's own page. 1
The Accountant
The pages state hosting in France, native GDPR compliance, that data stays in Europe, and a French contracting entity — that satisfies EU hosting as standard with an EU entity. However the infrastructure is not named, no subprocessor list is published, and no certification is shown, so the chain beyond the vendor's own declaration is unevidenced. 1
The Portfolio Manager
The pages claim hosting in France, native GDPR compliance, data that stays in Europe, and a French contracting entity built by Arkendia, which is a solid European base. We found no public information on the named hosting infrastructure, a published subprocessor list, or a certification backing the claims. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The pages state hosting in France with native GDPR compliance, a French contracting entity developed by Arkendia, and that data stays in Europe — the right baseline, and the only criterion where these pages speak to my duties. But we found no public information on the named infrastructure behind the hosting, on any subprocessor list, on certification, or on where document processing and any AI feature would send a file; the assertion that data does not cross the Atlantic is not a substitute for a named chain. 1
The Skeptic
The vendor states hosting in France, native GDPR compliance, a French development and contracting entity, and that data stays in Europe — but we found no public information on the hosting infrastructure by name, a subprocessor list, or any certification, so the chain is asserted on the vendor's own page rather than evidenced. 1
Pricing transparency
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
Tier prices are public per user — '5 € / utilisateur / mois', '10 € / utilisateur / mois', '16 € / utilisateur / mois' — with monthly billing, 'Annuel −20 %', 'Sans engagement', and the statement that one subscription per user includes all tools with no per-module pricing. What an administrator still cannot compute: I found no public information on per-community or per-unit costs, setup or migration fees, or VAT treatment, and the vendor states 'Les abonnements ne sont pas encore ouverts à la commande.' 1
The Advisory Board Member
The prices are public and plain — Essentiel at 5 € / utilisateur / mois, Pro at 10 € / utilisateur / mois, Business at 16 € / utilisateur / mois, billed each month with 'Annuel −20 %' and no engagement — and no tool sits in an unpriced bundle. But the figures are per user rather than per community or per unit, VAT treatment and any setup or migration cost are unstated, and the page itself says the subscriptions are not yet open to order. 1
The Accountant
All three tiers carry public figures — Essentiel at 5 € / utilisateur / mois, Pro at 10 € / utilisateur / mois, Business at 16 € / utilisateur / mois — with monthly billing, an annual discount of 20 %, no commitment and the stated position of no per-module pricing, so the recurring cost per user is plain. VAT treatment is not stated and the subscriptions are not yet open for order, which keeps full annual computability out of reach. 1
The Portfolio Manager
Three per-user tiers are public — "5 € / utilisateur / mois", "10 € / utilisateur / mois", "16 € / utilisateur / mois" — with monthly billing, "Annuel −20 %", no commitment and all tools included with no per-module pricing. We found no public information on setup or migration costs and VAT treatment, and the pages state subscriptions are not yet open to order. 1
The Data Protection Officer
Every tier is priced publicly — '5 € / utilisateur / mois', '10 € / utilisateur / mois' and '16 € / utilisateur / mois', billed monthly, with 'Annuel −20 %', 'Sans engagement' and all tools included so no module sits in an unpriced bundle. We found no public information on setup or migration costs or VAT treatment, and the captured pages state that subscriptions are not yet open to order; a per-user model lets a buyer compute cost per seat, though not per community or per unit. 1
The Skeptic
All three tiers are priced publicly per user per month — "5 € / utilisateur / mois", "10 € / utilisateur / mois", "16 € / utilisateur / mois" — with monthly billing, the stated "Annuel −20 %", no commitment, and explicitly no per-module pricing; VAT treatment and any setup or migration costs are unstated, and the pages say subscriptions are not yet open to order. 1
Questions about Agoranext
Is Agoranext European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Agoranext is based.
Where does Agoranext store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 26 Oct 2026.
Does Agoranext have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 26 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Agoranext?
As of 26 Oct 2026, the panel rates Condomana (3/5), Immoware24 (2.5/5) and etg24 (2.5/5) highest among the other 19 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: Agoranext alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 26 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- 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 compliance on the pages we read (agoranext.com). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
Sources (1)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.agoranext.com Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →