Property & WEG Management
Condomana
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 Condomana · www.condomana.com
Compare with etg24 → Compare with Immoware24 → 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
Condomana is a German-first WEG management platform from nelo digitalagentur GmbH & Co KG (Amtsgericht Ulm, HRA 725183). It is strongest on pricing transparency: judges computed the annual invoice from the public page alone — €10 per unit per year plus VAT, €2.50/year for parking and storage, worked examples of 24 units for €240 and 120 units in five buildings for €1,200, one tier, unlimited users, annual billing with no automatic renewal. Only the migration and rollout service for large portfolios is unpriced. Sovereignty is a flat 7: the evidence's computed sovereignty attributes read 'unknown', but the captured imprint and privacy policy name a German controller on Hetzner in Gunzenhausen, EU-only servers, an Art. 28 AVV, and third-country transfers excluded in principle except Buffer Inc. (San Francisco) for social publishing — docked because the AI subprocessor is unnamed and no certification is published. Weakest is wirtschaftsplan, Jahresabrechnung & Rücklage: Wirtschaftsplan and Jahresabrechnung exist, but the evidence is silent on the Rücklage as segregated trust money, Abrechnungsspitze, Vermögensbericht, HeizkostenV and dunning. The remaining criteria run 5-7; no split between the judges was large enough to flag.
Speaks for it
- Annual price computable from public pages alone: €10 per unit/year plus VAT, with worked examples at 24 units (€240) and 120 units (€1,200).
- Voting engine computes results per agenda item (per head or by ownership share) into a gapless, append-only Beschlusssammlung with annotated corrections.
- German controller (nelo digitalagentur GmbH & Co KG) on Hetzner in Gunzenhausen; sheet states EU-only servers, an Art. 28 AVV, and AI processing without model training.
- Defects tracked open-to-done with photos, offline mobile capture, contractor assignment and recurring maintenance raising its own tickets on a forward-only timeline.
- Vollständiger CSV-Export with migration import, plus a 30-day trial with no credit card and no sales call.
Held against it
- Sheet is silent on the Rücklage as segregated trust money, Abrechnungsspitze, Vermögensbericht, HeizkostenV apportionment and dunning of Hausgeld arrears.
- No evidence of notice-period invitations, proxy and quorum handling, or minutes generated from the recorded votes.
- No statutory inspections (lift, heating, fire, drinking water) or Gewährleistung periods tracked, and no quotes or invoices linked to a defect.
- Handover is CSV data only — no version history, and no successor-loadable package of ledger, register and documents.
- Owners see no per-unit statements, meeting papers or voting in the portal, and no access log evidences the disclosure duty.
Best for
- You administer German WEG portfolios and want to compute the annual invoice yourself from public pages before signing.
- You need a real voting engine with a gapless, append-only Beschlusssammlung for your owners' meetings.
- Your community requires the evidence's stated EU-only servers, a signed Art. 28 AVV and hosting at Hetzner in Gunzenhausen.
- You want owner and tenant self-service for documents and defect reports with unlimited invited users at no charge.
Avoid if
- Your Jahresabrechnung must evidence a separately shown Abrechnungsspitze, a Vermögensbericht and HeizkostenV apportionment — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You must schedule statutory inspections (lift, heating, fire, drinking water) with stored proof, or track Gewährleistung periods per trade.
- Your handover to a successor Verwalter has to be a loadable package of ledger, register and documents, not a CSV export.
- You need every subprocessor named and a published certification — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
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
Wirtschaftsplan with computed per-unit Hausgeld and a Jahresabrechnung drafted from the year's bookings, apportioned by keys and frozen on approval, Sonderumlagen included — that clears the mid anchor. But the evidence is silent on the Rücklage as separately-booked trust money, on HeizkostenV apportionment, the Vermögensbericht, the BGH Abrechnungsspitze and dunning of Hausgeld arrears — the things my March run actually turns on. 1 2 5
The Advisory Board Member
The Wirtschaftsplan computes each unit's Hausgeld and the Jahresabrechnung is drafted from the year's bookings with my keys, frozen on approval — that is the anchor-5 promise, and the AI reads invoices but never books on its own. But the evidence is silent on the Rücklage as a separate trust balance, on Abrechnungsspitze and Vermögensbericht, on HeizkostenV apportionment and on Hausgeld arrears with dunning, so I cannot certify more to the assembly. 1 5
The Accountant
The Wirtschaftsplan computes each unit's advance payments and the Jahresabrechnung is drafted from the year's bookings and apportioned by the owner's keys, with Sonderumlagen handled — that earns the middle ground. But the evidence is silent on everything I check first: no Abrechnungsspitze shown separately, no Vermögensbericht, no HeizkostenV apportionment, and not one word that the Rücklage is segregated trust money rather than a labelled balance, so rubric level 5's 'reserves booked separately' is unevidenced. 1 5
The Portfolio Manager
The core cycle is there: budget each cost type and the plan computes every unit's Hausgeld, the Jahresabrechnung is drafted from the year's bookings, apportioned by my keys and frozen on approval, with Sonderumlagen covered — that is a clean rubric level 5. What keeps it from higher is silence on the Rücklage as a separate trust balance, no Abrechnungsspitze/Vermögensbericht, no HeizkostenV apportionment, no owner-change splits and no arrears dunning. 1 2 5
The Data Protection Officer
Wirtschaftsplan with per-unit advance computation and a Jahresabrechnung drafted from the year's bookings and apportioned by configurable keys meets the mid anchor, with Sonderumlagen on top. But the evidence is silent on the Rücklage as trust money — no separate reserve accounting, no Abrechnungsspitze, no Vermögensbericht, no HeizkostenV or dunning — and funds held in trust for people who never chose this vendor are exactly where I need that separation evidenced. 1 5
The Skeptic
Wirtschaftsplan and Jahresabrechnung are drafted from the year's bookings and apportioned 'by your keys', with unit advance payments computed on approval — that is exactly the anchor-5 picture, and the unit model tracks MEA. But nothing evidences the post-2021 BGH form with a separately shown Abrechnungsspitze, a Vermögensbericht, HeizkostenV apportionment, owner-change splits mid-year, dunning of Hausgeld arrears, or the Rücklage kept in trust with its own reporting; 'Sonderumlagen' is named and nothing more. 1 2 5
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 Abstimmungs-Engine carries each agenda item's basis (per head or by ownership share) and computes the result, and the Beschlusssammlung is gapless, append-only, with challenges and corrections annotated rather than overwritten — genuine § 24 (7) behaviour. What I do not see: invitations respecting the notice period, proxy and attendance recording, or minutes generated from the votes. 1 2 5
The Advisory Board Member
Every agenda item carries its basis — per head or by ownership share — and closing it computes the result, and the Beschluss-Sammlung is gapless, continuously numbered and append-only with corrections annotated rather than overwritten: that is the register § 24 (7) wants. What is missing is the meeting around it — invitation logistics and notice periods, proxies, and minutes generated from the recorded votes are nowhere evidenced. 1 2
The Accountant
A real Abstimmungs-Engine where every agenda item carries its basis (per head or by ownership share) and its majority with computed results, plus a gapless, append-only Beschluss-Sammlung where challenges and corrections are annotated, never overwritten — that is the § 24 (7) register discipline. But the evidence says nothing about invitations and the notice period, proxy recording, quorum, or minutes generated from the recorded votes, which keeps it short of the 8 anchor. 1 2
The Portfolio Manager
A real voting engine where each agenda item carries its basis (per head or by ownership share) and its majority and computes the result on closing, plus a gapless, continuously numbered, append-only Beschluss-Sammlung where challenges are annotated rather than overwritten — that reaches past a plain numbered register. But the evidence says nothing about invitations with the notice period, attendance or proxy recording, quorum for qualified majorities, or minutes generated from the recorded votes, so it sits between the 5 and 8 anchors. 1 2 5
The Data Protection Officer
A real voting engine with per-head and MEA-weighted bases, majorities computed per agenda item, and a gapless append-only Beschlusssammlung where challenges and corrections are annotated rather than overwritten covers the heart of the anchor-8 register duty. What is missing is everything around the meeting itself: no evidence of notice-period invitations, proxy and quorum handling, or minutes generated from the recorded votes. 1 2 5
The Skeptic
There is a real voting engine — each agenda item carries its basis (per head or by ownership share) and its majority, and closing the item computes the result — and the Beschluss-Sammlung is gapless, numbered, append-only with challenges and corrections annotated, which is solidly rubric level 5 and touches § 24(7) discipline. What I don't see: notice-period invitations, attendance and proxy recording, quorum or qualified majorities per resolution type, minutes generated from recorded votes, or any written-circulation procedure — the arithmetic that decides whether a Beschluss stands is only half evidenced. 1 2 5
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
Per-owner document scoping, defect reports with photo and status everyone can see, announcements per building, and tenants invited in by their landlord — the visibility separation is right. But there is no evidence owners see their own statements, arrears or meeting papers in the portal, let alone an access log discharging the Einsichtsrecht. 1 2 5 4
The Advisory Board Member
Owners are scoped properly: each document shared with exactly the entitled owners, defect reports with photo and a status everyone can see, and letting owners can bring their tenants in. But I find no evidence that owners see their own statements or meeting papers and voting in the portal, nor arrears per unit — so the Einsichtsrecht still runs through the administrator's inbox. 1 5 4
The Accountant
Owners and tenants get a real portal: documents shared with exactly the entitled owners, photo defect reports whose status everyone can see, and requests that reach the Verwaltung, with tenants invited in by their owner. No evidence that an owner sees their own statement or arrears per unit, nor meeting papers or voting in the portal — the disclosure duty is not discharged on this sheet. 1 5
The Portfolio Manager
Owners see their building's documents, defects and news with per-owner document permissioning, requests run through the Eigentümerportal, defect reports arrive with a photo and a status visible to the reporter, and landlords can invite their tenants in — that is most of the anchor-8 separation without me touching email. Not evidenced: meeting papers or voting in the portal, per-unit consumption or arrears, and any access log that would discharge the disclosure duty on demand. 1 2 5 4
The Data Protection Officer
Per-owner document sharing, portal defect reports with a status the reporter can see, and tenant access granted only through the owning owner give a defensible separation of visibility — better than most. But no evidence of per-unit statements or arrears display, owner-facing voting or meeting papers in the portal, and above all no access log, which is the difference between granting disclosure and proving it. 1 5 4
The Skeptic
Owners see their building's documents, defects and news with per-owner document permissions, defect reports go in with a photo and a status everyone can see, and letting owners can invite their tenants — good scoping and real defect self-service. But nothing shows per-owner statements, meeting papers or voting available in the portal, nor consumption or arrears per unit, and no access log evidencing the disclosure duty being discharged on demand. 1 2 5 4
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
Defects run from open to done with photos and a forward-only timeline I could stand behind, contractor assignment, and recurring maintenance that raises its own ticket at due date — mobile and offline included. No evidence of statutory inspections with stored proof, Gewährleistung tracking, or costs allocated back to the plan's accounts. 1 2 5 4
The Advisory Board Member
A defect runs from open to done with photos and a forward-only timeline I could defend in a dispute, a Handwerker is assigned in the system, and recurring maintenance raises its own ticket at due date. Silence, though, on the statutory inspections — lift, heating, fire safety, drinking water — on Gewährleistung periods per trade, and on linking quotes and invoices to the defect. 1 2
The Accountant
Defects tracked from open to done with photos and contractor assignment, recurring maintenance that raises its own ticket at due date, and a forward-only timeline that makes a defensible duty-of-care record. But Gewährleistung periods, statutory inspections with stored proof of completion, and quotes or invoices linked to the defect with the cost on the correct account are all silent — the difference between a list and an operating record. 1 2
The Portfolio Manager
Defects tracked from open to done with photos (including offline mobile capture), tradesman assignment, and recurring maintenance that raises its own ticket at due date — plus a forward-only timeline that holds up as a duty-of-care record. For a portfolio my size the missing pieces hurt: no statutory inspections (lift, heating, fire, drinking water) with proof of completion stored, no Gewährleistung tracking against the responsible trade, and no quotes/invoices linked to the defect with cost allocated to the right account. 1 2 5 4
The Data Protection Officer
Defect tracking open-to-done with photos and mobile offline capture, contractor assignment, recurring maintenance that raises its own tickets, and a forward-only timeline that makes the duty-of-care record tamper-evident — that last point I value, since it answers what the administrator knew and when. But warranty periods and statutory inspections (lift, fire, drinking water) with stored proof are entirely absent from the evidence, which caps it below the 8 anchor. 1 2 5
The Skeptic
Defect intake tracked open-to-done with photos, contractor assignment, and recurring maintenance that raises its own tickets at due date — rubric level 5 is fully met, and the forward-only timeline is an evidence trail a Verwalter can stand behind. Beyond that: no warranty/Gewährleistung periods tracked against a trade, no statutory inspections (lift, heating, fire, drinking water) scheduled with stored proof, and no quotes or invoices linked to the defect with cost allocated to the right account. 1 2
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
Full-text search filed per building and unit, per-owner permissions, ten-year retention stated on the § 257 HGB / § 147 AO basis, and a vollständiger CSV-Export with no automatic renewal. But a CSV is data, not a handover package: version history, document export in open formats and a successor-loadable Übergabe are unevidenced. 2 5 4
The Advisory Board Member
Full-text search across an archive filed per building and unit, ten-year invoice retention cited to § 257 HGB / § 147 AO, and a complete CSV export — a documented exit for the data at least. Version history, documents linked to the resolutions and settlements that cite them, and a handover package a successor administrator could actually load — document archive included, not just CSV — are not in the evidence. 2 5 4
The Accountant
Volltextsuche over everything filed per building and unit, plus a complete CSV export in both directions and retention stated under § 257 HGB / § 147 AO at up to ten years. Version history and documents linked to the resolutions and settlements that reference them are unevidenced, and the export is data, not a documented handover package of ledger, register and documents for a successor Verwalter. 2 5 4
The Portfolio Manager
Full-text search across everything filed per building and unit, retention grounded in § 257 HGB / § 147 AO at ten years for invoices, and a vollständiger CSV-Export with a migrationsimport on the way in — no lock-in language anywhere. But there is no version history, no evidence documents are linked to the resolutions and settlements that reference them, and no defined handover package a successor administrator can load, so it lands between the 5 and 8 anchors. 2 5 4
The Data Protection Officer
Full-text search over a per-building, per-unit archive, retention periods actually stated (§ 257 HGB / § 147 AO, ten years for invoices; server logs deleted after three months), and a complete CSV export with migration import get it to the mid anchor. There is no evidence of version history, of an access log over the archive, or that the handover export covers the document archive and register rather than tabular data — and retention periods stated are not retention that executes. 2 5 4
The Skeptic
Full-text search with documents filed per building and unit, per-owner sharing permissions, and a 'vollständiger CSV-Export' plus a migration import — that is rubric level 5. But no version history, no evidence documents are linked to the resolutions and settlements that reference them, no structured handover package (ledger, register, documents, master data) a successor could actually load, and the only retention statement covers the vendor's own invoices, not the WEG archive. 2 5 4
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 imprint and privacy policy give me what the pipeline marked unknown: nelo digitalagentur GmbH & Co KG at AG Ulm, Hetzner in Gunzenhausen, EU-only servers, AI processing exclusively in the EU under an Art. 28 AVV with no model training, and the sole non-EU processor is Buffer in San Francisco publishing social posts — community records never touch it. The AI-Auftragsverarbeiter is engaged but unnamed, ownership and certification are unstated, so I stop short of the full anchor. 3 2 5 4
The Advisory Board Member
The imprint and privacy policy name a German entity (Amtsgericht Ulm, HRA 725183), German hosting at Hetzner in Gunzenhausen, EU-only servers and no third-country transfers except the named Buffer Inc. for social-media publishing — the quoted records are solid even though the pipeline's attributes came back unknown. But the optional AI features rest on a further processor that is asserted EU yet never named, and no certification is published, so completeness is not proven. 3 2 4
The Accountant
German contracting entity (nelo digitalagentur GmbH & Co KG, Amtsgericht Ulm) on named infrastructure — Hetzner in Gunzenhausen — with no third-country transfers except the social-media presence, and AI processing stated as EU-only under an Art. 28 AVV. The AI subprocessor is only 'einen weiteren Auftragsverarbeiter', unnamed, and the US-based Buffer is named but without the legal basis for that transfer, so the complete published list of the 8 anchor is not met, and no certification appears. 3 4
The Portfolio Manager
German contracting entity (nelo digitalagentur GmbH & Co KG, Amtsgericht Ulm) on named German infrastructure (Hetzner, Gunzenhausen), no third-country transfers in principle, signed AVV per Art. 28, AI processing exclusively on EU servers — solid. Docked because the AI subprocessor is engaged but never named, Buffer Inc. (San Francisco) sits in the chain for social publishing, and no certification (ISO, C5) is published. 3 4
The Data Protection Officer
German contracting entity (nelo digitalagentur GmbH & Co KG, Amtsgericht Ulm) on named German infrastructure (Hetzner, Gunzenhausen), no third-country transfers except the named Buffer Inc. for social publishing, and — the answer I demand — AI text processing (defect reports, documents, portal inquiries) runs exclusively on EU servers under an Art. 28 AVV with no model training. It falls short of the top anchor because the AI Auftragsverarbeiter is engaged but never named, and ownership and subprocessor exposure remain unconfirmed by the pipeline. 3 4
The Skeptic
Hetzner in Gunzenhausen for hosting and mail, a German contracting entity (nelo digitalagentur GmbH & Co KG, HRA 725183 Ulm) as controller, tenant isolation and RBAC — the core chain is European and named, and third-country transfers are generally excluded. But the optional AI text-processing of Mängelmeldungen, Dokumente and portal requests runs through 'einen weiteren Auftragsverarbeiter' who is never named, and Buffer, Inc. (San Francisco) is a non-EU subprocessor whose legal basis I don't see stated; no certification published either. 3 2 4
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
Ten euros per unit per year plus VAT, parking and storage at a quarter of that, unlimited users with invited owners always free, everything in one tier with no locked stages — and the two worked examples (24 units/240 €, 120 units/1,200 €) let me compute my forty communities' invoice on the back of an envelope. Only the bespoke migration service for large portfolios is unpriced, and no exit or export fee is stated outright. 2 5
The Advisory Board Member
Ten euros per unit per year plus VAT, Stellplätze at a quarter of that, worked examples for 24 and 120 units, all features included with no locked tiers and unlimited free users, no card and no auto-renewal — I can compute a community's annual invoice myself from the public page. Only the migration and rollout services for large portfolios lack a number, and that is genuinely custom work. 1 5
The Accountant
I can compute the annual invoice from public pages alone: €10 per unit per year plus VAT, €2.50 for Stellplätze and Abstellräume, worked examples for 24 and 120 units, every feature in one price with no locked tiers, unlimited free users, annual billing with no automatic renewal. Only the rollout/migration service for large portfolios is unpriced — arguably genuinely custom — and there is no explicit statement that leaving or exporting costs nothing, which alone keeps it off the 10 anchor. 1 5
The Portfolio Manager
I can compute my whole invoice from public pages: €10 per unit per year excl. VAT, €2.50 for parking and storage, worked examples that check out (24 units → €240; 120 units in five buildings → €1,200), all features in one tier, unlimited admins and owners free, annual billing by bank transfer with no auto-renewal. 1 2 5
The Data Protection Officer
€10 per unit per year plus VAT, annual billing, parking spaces at 2,50 €, workable examples (24 units = 240 €, 120 units in five buildings = 1.200 €), everything in one tier with no locked stages, AI included, unlimited users, no card and no auto-renewal — an administrator can compute the invoice. 1 2 5
The Skeptic
€10 per unit per year plus VAT, parking and storage at a quarter of that, worked examples for 24 units (€240) and 120 units in five buildings (€1,200), all features in one tier with unlimited free verwalter and owners and no per-seat surprises — the annual invoice is derivable from the public page alone. Two unstated items keep it off the top: the minimum term is only implied by 'nichts automatisch', and the migration/rollout service has no number at all — the one figure a porting administrator will ask for. 2 5
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 ⚠ unverified | 3/3 pts | 3 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | EU only ⚠ unverified | 3/3 pts | 4 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 1 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 — Legal entity. Condomana is only a product brand; the operating entity is nelo digitalagentur GmbH & Co KG, represented by milori GmbH (Amtsgericht Ulm, HRB 730337), both registered in Ulm, Germany.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency. The EU-server statement is confirmed in the privacy policy, but the same page discloses US-based Buffer, Inc. for social-media publishing — with the express assurance that no Condomana service data is transferred to it — so this exposure does not touch product data.
- Weak sourcing — Subprocessors. Hetzner's address block is cut mid-way on the page with its 'Deutschland' line falling after the cut; the optional AI processor Langdock GmbH is likewise listed as Germany/EU-only, and the US-based Buffer, Inc. is explicitly stated to receive no Condomana service data.
- 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.
- 1 data 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 legal 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
- 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 (5)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.condomana.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 +1 earlier capture: 11 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 German homepage www.condomana.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 +1 earlier capture: 11 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Imprint www.condomana.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Privacy policy www.condomana.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 +2 earlier captures: 11 Sep 2026, 1 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Pricing www.condomana.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 +2 earlier captures: 21 Sep 2026, 11 Sep 2026 Details →