Property & WEG Management
HERMANN
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by GRB AG · www.grb.de
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.
HERMANN at a glance
- Vendor
- GRB AG
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates HERMANN 0.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. The bench judged HERMANN, GRB AG's property and WEG management product, from two captured pages — the homepage and the privacy policy — and the scores cluster at 0 on WEG accounting, assembly and resolutions, owner self-service, maintenance and defects, documents and handover, and pricing transparency: the judges found no public information on any of these capabilities. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 20 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 21 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
The bench judged HERMANN, GRB AG's property and WEG management product, from two captured pages — the homepage and the privacy policy — and the scores cluster at 0 on WEG accounting, assembly and resolutions, owner self-service, maintenance and defects, documents and handover, and pricing transparency: the judges found no public information on any of these capabilities. The one genuine split is sovereignty, and it turns on whether the privacy policy's candour about website tooling counts. The data protection officer scored 3 for a named German controller, Ecclesia Holding GmbH in Detmold, and a processor list including US-based tools with stated transfer bases; the WEG administrator gave 1 on the same facts. The skeptic, portfolio manager, accountant and advisory board member scored 0, holding these are website-level facts that leave the product's hosting, contracting entity and subprocessors unknown — the sovereignty record reads unknown on legal-entity jurisdiction, ownership, data residency and subprocessor exposure. No prices appear on the captured pages; every figure would come from a sales conversation.
Speaks for it
- A named German controller, Ecclesia Holding GmbH in Detmold, stands behind the website.
- Website hosting sits with a German provider, onix GmbH.
- The privacy policy lists the website's processors, including US-based tools with a stated transfer basis — candour the data protection officer credited.
- Newsletter subscriptions run on double opt-in, with an unsubscribe link in every issue.
- Google Analytics and Matomo run with IP anonymization.
Held against it
- We found no public information on a business plan, annual settlement, distribution keys or reserve-fund accounting.
- We found no public information on convening owners' meetings, voting support or a maintained resolution register.
- We found no public information on an owner or tenant portal, per-owner statements or defect intake.
- We found no public information on document archiving, retention periods for community records or a defined handover export.
- The sovereignty record reads unknown on legal-entity jurisdiction, ownership, data residency and subprocessor exposure.
Best for
- You are comparing vendors through direct sales conversations and want the public pages to confirm a German controller and German website hosting.
- You audit privacy policies and value a processor list that names US-based tools with their stated transfer bases.
- Your shortlist turns on candour in public privacy disclosure rather than on published product capability.
Avoid if
- You must see a product's hosting location, contracting entity and subprocessors documented before shortlisting — the sovereignty record reads unknown on legal-entity jurisdiction, ownership, data residency and subprocessor exposure.
- Your policy rules out US-based processing in any channel — the website chain includes Microsoft Clarity on a USA data centre and Google reCAPTCHA, with the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework given as transfer basis.
- You need to budget from published prices — the captured pages carry none.
- You must assess settlements, assemblies and an owner portal from public documentation — the only concrete product details on the captured pages concern website analytics and tracking tools.
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 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 0 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 captured pages are a homepage and a privacy policy; we found no public information on a business plan, a settlement in the form the law requires, distribution keys, or separate handling of the reserve fund. For my March settlement run nothing here even tells me the documents exist, which by my measure is worth nothing. 1 2
The Advisory Board Member
The captured pages are a homepage and a website privacy notice; we found no public information on a Wirtschaftsplan, a Jahresabrechnung, distribution keys or how the Rücklage is booked. As an owner who re-checks the settlement line by line before recommending it to the assembly, I cannot credit arithmetic I cannot trace. 1 2
The Accountant
I found no public information on a Wirtschaftsplan, a Jahresabrechnung, distribution keys or the separate custody of the reserve fund; the captured pages never mention an Abrechnungsspitze or heating-cost apportionment per HeizkostenV. A statutory financial cycle the public record does not evidence is worth the lowest mark. 1 2
The Portfolio Manager
The captured pages are the vendor's homepage and its privacy policy, and we found no public information on a Wirtschaftsplan, Jahresabrechnung, distribution keys or separate reserve-fund accounting. For a firm managing thousands of units, I cannot even begin to assess the statutory financial cycle from what is published. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pages are the homepage and the privacy policy; we found no public information on a business plan, an annual settlement, distribution keys, or how reserve funds held in trust would be booked. With nothing at all evidencing the statutory financial cycle, this sits at the bottom of the scale. 1 2
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 an owners' meeting, agenda handling, voting support or a maintained resolution register. I would still be keeping the Beschluss-Sammlung in a drawer beside the system, and every invitation would be written elsewhere. 1 2
The Advisory Board Member
We found no public information on convening an owners' meeting, recording attendance and proxies, voting support or a maintained Beschluss-Sammlung. My neighbours would have to take the register entirely on trust from these pages, so I score what the evidence supports. 1 2
The Accountant
We found no public information on convening owners' meetings, majority arithmetic, proxy or attendance handling, or a maintained Beschluss-Sammlung. Absence of every one of these capabilities from the captured pages leaves only the bottom mark. 1 2
The Portfolio Manager
We found no public information on convening owners' meetings, notice periods, voting support, majority arithmetic or a maintained Beschluss-Sammlung. The only concrete product details on the captured pages concern website analytics and tracking tools. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public information on convening owners' meetings, recording attendance or proxies, voting support, or a maintained resolution register. The meeting process is publicly undocumented end to end. 1 2
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
We found no public information on an owner or tenant portal — no per-owner login, no statements, no meeting papers, no defect or request form. Every routine request from my communities would still arrive by phone, post and email. 1 2
The Advisory Board Member
The captures cover website analytics, newsletter consent and tracking tools only; we found no public information on an owner or tenant login, per-owner statements, meeting papers or a defect form reaching the administrator. I cannot tell from public evidence how an owner would exercise their right to see the records. 1 2
The Accountant
The captured pages show no owner or tenant portal; the only self-service-adjacent facts are newsletter double opt-in and an unsubscribe link, which concern marketing email rather than access to statements or records. I found no public information on per-owner scoping, defect reporting or voting in a portal. 1 2
The Portfolio Manager
We found no public information on an owner or tenant portal — per-owner logins, statements, meeting papers, or a defect form reaching the administrator. My throughput lives on self-service, and there is nothing here to evaluate. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public information on any owner or tenant portal, per-owner login, statement access or defect form, so the buyer cannot see how an owner would inspect their own arrears or papers. For data on people who never chose the vendor, the visibility-separation question is entirely unanswered publicly. 1 2
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
We found no public information on defect intake, recurring maintenance obligations, contractor assignment or any evidence trail for the building side. Nothing captured shows the operating record a community needs when something goes wrong. 1 2
The Advisory Board Member
We found no public information on defect records with status, recurring maintenance schedules, statutory inspections or contractor work orders. On the building side the public pages give me nothing to check an administrator's answers against. 1 2
The Accountant
Nothing captured describes defect intake, recurring maintenance obligations, statutory inspections or contractor assignment. I found no public information on the building-management side of the product, so the score reflects that absence. 1 2
The Portfolio Manager
We found no public information on defect intake and tracking, recurring maintenance calendars, contractor assignment or stored proof of statutory inspections. On these pages I have nothing to attach my lift, heating, fire-safety and drinking-water obligations to. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public information on defect intake, recurring maintenance scheduling, contractor assignment, or evidence trails around inspections. Nothing in the captured pages evidences the building-management side at all. 1 2
The Skeptic
We found no public information on defect tracking, recurring maintenance, contractor assignment or statutory inspections. The only retention statement the pages carry — deletion of health data around two weeks after an event — concerns events and website visitors, not the operating record of a building. 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
We found no public information on structured document management, retention periods or a defined handover export. A Verwalter's appointment is finite by law and the records belong to the community; nothing captured shows how they would leave this vendor in a form a successor could load. 1 2
The Advisory Board Member
We found no public information on structured document archiving per property and unit, retention periods, or a defined handover export of a community's records. An administrator's appointment ends by law, and I see nothing public on what a community leaving looks like. 1 2
The Accountant
We found no public information on document archiving, retention periods for community records or a defined handover export; the sole retention statement captured applies to event health data on the website, deleted after two weeks. Nothing here evidences the archive or the statutory exit. 1 2
The Portfolio Manager
We found no public information on structured document management, retention periods, version history or a defined handover export for a community's records. Handover is a statutory event for me, and nothing published describes how a successor administrator would receive anything. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public information on structured document management for community records, retention periods for the archive, versioning, or a defined handover export. The only deletion statements we found concern website visitor and newsletter data, so retention that actually executes is publicly evidenced for marketing data, not for the community's records. 1 2
The Skeptic
We found no public information on an archive for community records, retention periods, version history or a defined handover export; the privacy policy addresses website visitors and newsletter recipients, not a community's documents. What a community receives when the appointment ends is, on these pages, an open question. 1 2
European sovereignty
panel opinion
panel disagrees
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 only sovereignty-relevant facts concern the marketing website: a German controller in Detmold, website hosting with a German provider, and US tools such as Microsoft Clarity and Google named with Data Privacy Framework and contractual-clause bases. For the management system itself we found no public information on where the community's records would be hosted, the contracting entity's jurisdiction, or the subprocessors touching them. 1 2
The Advisory Board Member
The privacy notice names a German controller for the website (Ecclesia Holding GmbH, Detmold) and a German website host, but we found no public information on the product's contracting entity, where the community's financial and personal records would be hosted, or its subprocessors. The same notice shows US-based processors in the website chain, among them Microsoft Clarity in a USA data centre under the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework, which is marketing tracking rather than an evidenced safeguard for a community's books. 2
The Accountant
For the product itself — where a community's financial records would be hosted, who the contracting entity is, and which subprocessors touch them — I found no public information; the only confirmed facts concern the marketing website, hosted by a German provider under a German controller. That site itself names Microsoft Clarity with a US data centre and Google services relying on the Data Privacy Framework, which is the extent of what the captured pages show on third-country exposure. 1 2
The Portfolio Manager
The captured pages name a German controller and a German website host, but that covers the marketing site — and they also name US processing via Microsoft Clarity with the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework given as the transfer basis, alongside Google and LinkedIn tooling. We found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, where a community's financial records would be hosted, or any subprocessor list for the product itself. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
The privacy policy names a German controller and lists the website's processors, including US-based ones with a stated transfer basis, which is candour about marketing tooling. But we found no public information on where the management system, its ledger or its documents are hosted, which entity contracts for the product, or any subprocessor list for the product itself — the questions that matter for bank details and arrears are unanswered. 1 2
The Skeptic
We found no public information on the product's contracting entity, ownership, hosting location or the subprocessors that touch a community's records. The pages name a German controller and a German host for the website, and alongside them US-based trackers — Microsoft Clarity on a US data centre, Google reCAPTCHA, an EU-US Data Privacy Framework transfer basis — all of it website-level, none of it about where a community's financial records live. 1 2
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether an administrator can compute the real annual cost for the units under management — including modules, per-community fees and setup — from public pages alone.
0 — No public prices at all; every quote is a sales conversation.
3 — A per-unit or per-community headline exists, but modules, minimum terms, setup or migration fees are unstated.
5 — Per-unit or per-community prices public with billing period stated, but at least one commonly needed piece (portal, accounting module, document storage) sits in an unpriced bundle.
8 — Every tier and module priced publicly with per-unit maths, minimum term, setup and migration costs and VAT treatment stated; only genuinely custom enterprise work lacks a number.
10 — Complete price computability: annual invoice derivable for a given number of units and communities including every module, with no per-seat surprises and any exit or export fee stated outright.
The WEG Administrator
We found no public price information of any kind — no per-unit or per-community figure, no billing period, no minimum term, no setup or migration cost. For forty communities I cannot compute even a rough annual invoice from these pages, so every cost question would have to be a sales conversation. 1 2
The Advisory Board Member
We found no public prices at all — no per-unit or per-community figure, no billing period, no module, setup or migration costs. From these pages an administrator cannot begin to compute the real annual cost for the units under management. 1 2
The Accountant
The captured pages contain no prices for the software — no per-unit or per-community figure, no billing period, no setup or migration cost. With no headline number at all, an administrator cannot begin to compute an annual cost from public pages. 1 2
The Portfolio Manager
We found no public prices at all on the captured pages — no per-unit or per-community figure, no module pricing, no setup or migration costs. Every quote would be a sales conversation, and I cannot compute the annual cost for the units under management. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public prices at all on the captured pages — no per-unit or per-community figure, no billing period, no setup, migration or exit costs. Every price would have to come out of a sales conversation. 1 2
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 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 | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about HERMANN
Is HERMANN European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where HERMANN is based.
Where does HERMANN store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
Does HERMANN have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to HERMANN?
As of 20 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: HERMANN alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 20 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Subprocessors. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- We found no public information on pricing on the pages we read (grb.de, grb.de/datenschutz). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- 14 product facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 6 subprocessors facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 4 legal facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 compliance facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 hosting fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
Sources (2)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.grb.de Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Privacy policy — found from the homepage www.grb.de Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →