Property & WEG Management
Haufe PowerHaus
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 Haufe-Lexware Real Estate AG · www.haufe.de
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
Haufe PowerHaus enters this bench with a single imprint page as its entire evidence base, and the scores reflect that. Every functional criterion sits at the floor — wirtschaftsplan, Jahresabrechnung & Rücklage, eigentümerversammlung & Beschluss-Sammlung, owner & tenant self-service, maintenance, defects & contractors and documents, retention & handover each read 0 — while sovereignty is the only criterion off the floor at 3, and pricing transparency reads 0. The product is weakest at everything an administrator runs: nothing evidences a Wirtschaftsplan, Jahresabrechnung, distribution keys or separate Rücklage; convening, voting or a Beschluss-Sammlung; an owner portal; defect intake or a maintenance calendar; a document archive or a handover export. Its strongest — and only — showing is legal identity: a German contracting entity, Haufe-Lexware GmbH & Co. KG, Freiburg, HRA 4408, VAT DE812398835, though ownership stops at 'Ein Unternehmen der Haufe Group SE' and residency and subprocessors are unknown. There is no split to report: min equals max on every criterion, no disagreement cleared threshold, and the rationales converge on one reason — a category label plus an imprint is not a product record. Pricing is unpublished and uncounted.
Speaks for it
- Sovereignty is the only criterion off the floor, carried by a verifiable German contracting entity
- Complete legal identity on record: Kommanditgesellschaft, Registergericht Freiburg HRA 4408, Komplementärin Haufe-Lexware Verwaltungs GmbH HRB 5557, VAT DE812398835, six named managing directors
- Documented support channel exists: Haufe Service Center GmbH, toll-free 0800 5050-445, fax 0800 5050-446, service@haufe.de
- Provenance is recorded as EU made for a Germany-based vendor (Haufe-Lexware Real Estate AG)
Held against it
- Wirtschaftsplan, Jahresabrechnung & Rücklage, eigentümerversammlung & Beschluss-Sammlung, owner & tenant self-service, maintenance, defects & contractors and documents, retention & handover all sit at 0
- Nothing evidences the accounting cycle — no Wirtschaftsplan, Jahresabrechnung, distribution keys or separate Rücklage handling
- No owner portal, defect intake, Beschluss-Sammlung, document archive or handover export appears anywhere in the captured evidence
- Data residency and hosting are unknown, the subprocessor list is absent, and ownership is undisclosed above 'Ein Unternehmen der Haufe Group SE'
- No public prices exist, so annual cost is computable only through a sales conversation
Best for
- You are screening vendors on contracting-party identity first and want a German entity with register court, HR number and VAT ID on record
- You already work with Haufe and only need to confirm the contracting entity and support channel (Haufe Service Center, 0800 5050-445) at this stage
- You are building a provenance-tagged EU made shortlist and plan to verify all functionality in a sales-led evaluation anyway
Avoid if
- You need evidenced WEG accounting — Wirtschaftsplan, Jahresabrechnung, distribution keys, Rücklage separation — before signing anything
- Your owners expect a self-service portal with statements, meeting papers or a defect form
- You must tell a community where its data is hosted and which subprocessors can access it
- You need public prices to compute the annual cost of a unit or portfolio without a sales conversation
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
The entire evidence base is one imprint page: address, HRA 4408, six managing directors. Nothing on Wirtschaftsplan, Jahresabrechnung, distribution keys or a separately held Rücklage — my March settlement does not run on an Impressum, so this sits at the floor. 1
The Advisory Board Member
The only evidence in the registry is a legal imprint — nothing evidences a Wirtschaftsplan, a Jahresabrechnung, distribution keys or separate Rücklage handling, not even general bookkeeping. A settlement whose arithmetic I cannot follow back to a posting is one I will not countersign, and on this sheet the product appears to have none of the cycle at all. 1
The Accountant
The sole registry entry is an imprint page; there is no Wirtschaftsplan, no Jahresabrechnung, no distribution keys and no word on the Rücklage anywhere in the evidence. A capability unproven is a capability absent, so this sits at the general-bookkeeping-or-less anchor. 1
The Portfolio Manager
The evidence contains only legal imprint data — no Wirtschaftsplan, no Jahresabrechnung, no distribution keys, no word on Rücklage separation. As far as the evidence goes this is below even general bookkeeping: nothing financial is evidenced at all. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The registry contains not one fact about financial functions — no Wirtschaftsplan, no Jahresabrechnung, no distribution keys, no separation of the Rücklage. As evidenced, this is the 0-anchor exactly, and it also means I cannot see where arrears data on people who never chose this vendor would even be processed. 1
The Skeptic
The registry's sole entry is an imprint page: not one fact about Wirtschaftsplan, Jahresabrechnung, distribution keys, or whether the Rücklage is held separately. A category label 'WEG-Verwaltung' is not evidence of the post-2021 BGH settlement form, so rubric level 0 applies. 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
No agenda structure, no invitation mechanics, no voting arithmetic, no Beschluss-Sammlung appears anywhere in the captured material. If the product supports the Versammlung, the published evidence here does not say so — anchor zero by silence. 1
The Advisory Board Member
No invitation support, no voting arithmetic, no Beschluss-Sammlung appears anywhere in the evidence — the imprint is silent on the entire statutory meeting cycle. Without a maintained resolution register I could not tell a neighbour what was ever decided, so this sits at the zero anchor for absence. 1
The Accountant
No invitation, agenda, voting or Beschluss-Sammlung function appears at all — the only captured content is register court and managing-director boilerplate. That is the anchor-0 situation: the resolution register is a document somewhere, if that. 1
The Portfolio Manager
Not one fact about convening, agenda, voting arithmetic or a maintained Beschluss-Sammlung. On this record I'd be running owners' meetings entirely outside the product, which is the 0 anchor exactly. 1
The Data Protection Officer
Nothing in the evidence evidences any meeting support, invitation handling, voting arithmetic or a maintained Beschluss-Sammlung. The imprint is the entire product record, and it says nothing about any of this. 1
The Skeptic
Nothing on convening, agendas, voting, majority arithmetic, or a maintained Beschluss-Sammlung — the imprint is the entire evidence base. I will not credit a resolution register the vendor never mentions; rubric level 0. 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 only channel evidenced is the vendor's own customer-service phone line and fax — a sales channel for their customers, not a per-owner portal. No statements, no meeting papers, no defect form: nothing an Eigentümer could log into. 1
The Advisory Board Member
There is not a single fact about an owner or tenant portal; the only contact channel evidenced is the vendor's own service hotline and email. Every inspection request would be an email to the administrator, which is precisely the zero anchor. 1
The Accountant
No portal of any kind is evidenced, not even a shared download folder. The best an owner could do from this sheet is email service@haufe.de — which is precisely the answer-by-email-or-post world the anchor describes. 1
The Portfolio Manager
No portal, no per-owner login, no statements, no defect form — every routine request lands on my staff's desks. The imprint page is silent on anything owner-facing, and silent means absent here. 1
The Data Protection Officer
No portal is evidenced anywhere; the only support channel the evidence shows is a service email and toll-free phone line, which is the 0-anchor's world of every request answered by email. Tenant and owner visibility separation is not even claimable, let alone evidenced. 1
The Skeptic
No portal, no per-owner login, no statements, no defect form appears anywhere in the evidence. Every owner request would be answered by the Haufe Service Center phone line, which is precisely the anchor-0 world. 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
Not one fact about defect intake, recurring maintenance calendars, statutory inspections or contractor assignment. I judge this by the evidence trail I need in a Gewährleistung dispute, and this sheet provides none. 1
The Advisory Board Member
No defect intake, no maintenance calendar, no contractor or work-order function is evidenced anywhere in the evidence. As far as this record goes, defects arrive by phone and live in a notebook — the zero anchor. 1
The Accountant
No defect intake, maintenance calendar, statutory inspection tracking or contractor handling is evidenced. The only operational artefact on file is a customer-service phone and fax number, which is defects arriving by phone in a notebook. 1
The Portfolio Manager
Zero evidence on defect intake, recurring maintenance calendars, statutory inspections with stored proof, or contractor routing — that's the spine of my throughput, and nothing survives to score above a notebook. 1
The Data Protection Officer
No defect intake, maintenance calendar, contractor handling or evidence trail appears in the evidence base. 1
The Skeptic
Silence on defect intake, recurring maintenance schedules, contractor assignment, and statutory inspections. Without a single functional fact, the anchor-0 description is the only honest fit. 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
No archive structure, no versioning, no retention periods, no defined handover export — only corporate identity data. Handover of a community's records is a statutory event, and nothing here evidences the product even recognizes it. 1
The Advisory Board Member
The registry contains no document management, versioning, retention or handover export whatsoever — only the corporate imprint. Since the records belong to the community and handover is a statutory event, absence of any such evidence scores at zero. 1
The Accountant
The evidence shows no document storage, versioning, retention or export whatsoever. Handover, when the Verwaltervertrag ends, would mean copying folders from wherever they live outside this evidence. 1
The Portfolio Manager
No document management, no retention policy, no defined handover export in evidence. Taking on or releasing a WEG would mean folder-copying, which is precisely the 0 anchor. 1
The Data Protection Officer
There is no evidence of a document archive, versioning, retention periods or any handover export; retention that executes and an access log over the archive are my baseline concerns and neither is even mentioned. The evidence's silence here is the whole finding, with only the imprint to stand on. 1
The Skeptic
No document storage, no retention rules, no handover export is evidenced — the evidence documents a company, not a product. Handover being statutory rather than a support ticket is exactly what I look for, and there is nothing to look at. 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
A German contracting entity is confirmed — Haufe-Lexware GmbH & Co. KG, Freiburg, HRA 4408, DE VAT ID — but hosting location, ownership beyond 'Haufe Group SE' and the entire subprocessor chain are unknown, which is exactly the subprocessor-absent case at rubric level 3. I can tell a Versammlung who the Vertragspartner is; I cannot tell them where the community's records physically sit. 1
The Advisory Board Member
The imprint does establish a German contracting entity in Freiburg with register and VAT numbers, which keeps this off the floor. But hosting/data residency, ownership beyond 'Ein Unternehmen der Haufe Group SE', and every subprocessor are unknown, and the anchor places an absent subprocessor list at 3. 1
The Accountant
The imprint does confirm a German contracting entity (Haufe-Lexware GmbH & Co. KG, HRA 4408 Freiburg, VAT DE812398835), but data residency is unknown, the subprocessor list is absent, and ownership above 'Haufe Group SE' is undisclosed. For a community's financial records I cannot confirm where they sit or who touches them — that is the EU-entity-but-absent-subprocessors anchor. 1
The Portfolio Manager
The contracting entity is verifiably German — Freiburg KG, HRA 4408, DE VAT — but hosting, ownership and subprocessors are all unknown and the subprocessor list is absent, which is the anchor that pins this at 3. A named German imprint alone doesn't tell me where my communities' ledgers actually run. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The contracting entity is German with register court, HR number and VAT ID, which rules out the 0-anchor — but hosting is unstated, ultimate ownership stops at an unexplained 'Ein Unternehmen der Haufe Group SE', and no subprocessor list exists, which is precisely rubric level 3. I cannot tell a community where its members' bank details and arrears would run, and I have no answer on where any AI invoice feature sends a document, because none of it is disclosed. 1
The Skeptic
The imprint does prove a German contracting entity — HRA 4408, Komplementär-GmbH HRB 5557, DE VAT ID — which keeps it above zero. But hosting/residency is unknown, ownership stops at 'Ein Unternehmen der Haufe Group SE', and the subprocessor list is absent, which is rubric level 3 almost verbatim. 1
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
No price, no per-unit or per-community figure, no term, no setup or migration cost anywhere in the evidence. The annual cost for my forty communities is not computable from public pages, which is the anchor-0 case where every quote becomes a sales conversation. 1
The Advisory Board Member
No price of any kind appears in the evidence — no per-unit figure, no module list, no terms, nothing but the imprint's legal details. An administrator could not compute annual cost for a single unit from this sheet, which is the definition of the zero anchor. 1
The Accountant
No price, tier, module, minimum term or setup fee appears anywhere in the captured evidence; the only number on file is a toll-free support line. An administrator cannot compute the annual cost of a single unit from this, which is the no-public-prices anchor. 1
The Portfolio Manager
No prices anywhere in the evidence — no per-unit figure, no modules, no terms. I can't compute an annual cost for my portfolio without a sales conversation, and that is the 0 anchor verbatim. 1
The Data Protection Officer
Not a single price, tier, module, term or fee appears anywhere in the evidence base; the registry holds only an imprint. That is the 0-anchor: every quote would be a sales conversation. 1
The Skeptic
No per-unit price, no per-community price, no setup fee, no term, no VAT treatment — nothing I could use to compute an annual invoice for a given portfolio. rubric level 0: no public prices evidenced, and I treat that silence as the answer. 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 ⚠ unverified | 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 | — | uncited Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 15 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. No country name appears verbatim; DE is derived from the German register court (Registergericht Freiburg) and the DE VAT ID, and the Komplementärin is likewise registered in Freiburg.
- 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 (haufe.de/impressum). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- We found no public information on compliance on the pages we read (haufe.de/impressum). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. 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
- 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 (1)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Imprint www.haufe.de Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →