Property & WEG Management
immocloud
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 immocloud GmbH · immocloud.de
Compare with vermietet.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
immocloud is hosted property management for private landlords and Hausverwaltungen, and the bench reads the published modules — rent management, utility settlement "in 5 Minuten", meters, a DATEV export, a tenant portal, documents — as tenancy bookkeeping. Strongest is sovereignty at a uniform 4: a German GmbH in the imprint and named subprocessors in the privacy policy, though Sentry runs on Google Cloud Platform with no region stated and we found no public information on where the application and its documents are hosted. Documents and handover sits at a uniform 3. Weakest is assembly and resolutions at a flat 0: nothing in the captured pages mentions an owners' meeting, voting or a Beschluss-Sammlung. WEG accounting scores 1 to 2, with no public information on a Wirtschaftsplan, a statutory annual settlement, distribution keys or the Rücklage. Judges split on pricing transparency, 2 to 4: those crediting the stated terms and unit definition still note the only tier figure captured is "Auf Anfrage" from 50 units.
Speaks for it
- Sovereignty scored a uniform 4, resting on a German contracting entity (HRB 101443, Amtsgericht Düsseldorf) and named subprocessors including Frisbii Germany GmbH in Frankfurt and finAPI GmbH
- Central document storage is evidenced as a module with a document-intake email, and the DATEV export gives a defined path for financial data
- The pricing page states the unit definition, terms of 3 or 12 months with a 10% discount on twelve, net prices plus 19% VAT, and which services cost extra
- The trial runs 45 days with no payment data required at signup
- Meter management with a utility settlement advertised 'in 5 Minuten', automatic payment reminders and a tenant portal are published for the tenancy side
Held against it
- Assembly and resolutions scored a flat 0 — nothing in the captured pages mentions convening an owners' meeting, voting arithmetic or a maintained resolution register
- WEG accounting scored 1 to 2, with no public information on a Wirtschaftsplan, a Jahresabrechnung in the statutory form, distribution keys by ownership share or the Rücklage kept separately
- Self-service evidence is tenant-side only: we found no public information on a per-owner login, owners' statements or defect reports with visible status
- The only tier figure captured is 'Auf Anfrage' for the Tycoon tier from 50 units, and the extra costs carry no euro amounts
- We found no public information on where the application and its document store are hosted, on the company's ownership, or on the processor behind AI receipt capture
Best for
- You are a private landlord running tenancies and want meter-based utility settlement with automatic payment reminders
- You hand financial data to a Steuerberater and need a DATEV export
- You want a German contracting entity with named subprocessors in the privacy policy
- You want to test before committing — the trial runs 45 days with no payment data required
Avoid if
- You administer owners' communities and need support for convening meetings, voting arithmetic and a maintained resolution register
- Your financial cycle needs a Wirtschaftsplan, a statutory Jahresabrechnung, distribution keys by ownership share or a segregated reserve fund
- You need owners themselves to log in, see their own statements and meeting papers, and follow defect status
- You must compute an annual invoice from published prices and your portfolio runs from 50 units upward, where the tier reads 'Auf Anfrage'
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
What the captured pages show is rental bookkeeping — a finance module with bank-transaction categorisation via finAPI, meter management, and a "Nebenkostenabrechnung in 5 Minuten" aimed at tenancies — plus a DATEV export that hands the real accounting to the Steuerberater. I found no public information on a Wirtschaftsplan, a Jahresabrechnung in the form the BGH requires, distribution keys by Miteigentumsanteil, or separate trust accounting for the Rücklage. For the March settlement run across forty communities, essentially none of the statutory financial cycle is evidenced. 4 1
The Advisory Board Member
The captured pages show a landlord's bookkeeping — a finance module, bank transactions fetched and categorised through a banking provider, a utility-cost settlement 'in 5 Minuten' and a DATEV export — but we found no public information on a Wirtschaftsplan, a Jahresabrechnung in the statutory form, distribution keys by co-ownership share, or the Rücklage kept separately. I could not follow any community arithmetic back to a posting from what is published. 4 1
The Accountant
The published modules are rental bookkeeping — a Finanz module with bank transactions fetched and categorised via finAPI, DATEV-Export, meter management and a tenant utility settlement promising results 'in 5 Minuten statt Stunden'. I found no public information on a Wirtschaftsplan, a Jahresabrechnung in the BGH form with a separately shown Abrechnungsspitze, community distribution keys, or a Rücklage segregated as trust money — as evidenced, this is general bookkeeping only. 4 1
The Portfolio Manager
The published modules show general finances, meter readings and a tenant-side utility settlement ("Nebenkostenabrechnung in 5 Minuten") with DATEV export, but I found no public information on a Wirtschaftsplan, a WEG Jahresabrechnung, MEA or unit-based distribution keys, or separate reserve accounting. For my portfolio that is disqualifying territory regardless of the rest. 2 1
The Data Protection Officer
The published modules are rental bookkeeping — utility-cost settlement advertised as "Nebenkostenabrechnung in 5 Minuten", meter management, automatic payment reminders and DATEV export — while I found no public information on a Wirtschaftsplan, an annual settlement in the statutory community form, MEA-weighted distribution keys or separate reserve-fund accounting. Consumption-based apportionment for tenants puts this slightly above plain bookkeeping, but the statutory community financial cycle is not evidenced. 3 4 1
The Skeptic
The published modules cover a finance module with automatic bank-transaction categorisation, meters, a rental utility settlement promised 'in 5 Minuten', and DATEV export — but everything shown reads tenancy-side. We found no public information on a Wirtschaftsplan, a Jahresabrechnung in the post-2021 form, distribution keys for owners, or any separate handling of the Rücklage. 4 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
Nothing in the published material touches the owners' meeting — no convening tool, no agenda structure, no voting support and no maintained Beschluss-Sammlung; the module list stops at Kommunikation and Direktnachrichten per SMS. I found no public information on any meeting or resolution-register support. If I ran the Versammlung on this, the protocol and the register would live somewhere else entirely. 2 1
The Advisory Board Member
We found no public information on convening an owners' meeting, invitations, minutes, voting arithmetic or a Beschluss-Sammlung; the published module list names nothing of the kind. The resolution register is the administrator's legal duty, and nothing shown here would maintain one. 4 1
The Accountant
The feature lists name Mietverwaltung, Mietvertrag and Kommunikation, but I found no public information on convening an owners' meeting, agendas and notice periods, voting or majority arithmetic, or a maintained Beschluss-Sammlung. With nothing published on the meeting, this criterion sits at the bottom of the scale. 4 1
The Portfolio Manager
The published module list runs from rent management through finance, communication and documents, and I found no public information on convening owners' meetings, agenda structure, voting, minutes or a Beschluss-Sammlung. Nothing here helps me run a Versammlung or defend a resolution after the fact. 4 1
The Data Protection Officer
Nothing in the captured pages mentions owners' meetings: I found no public information on invitation or agenda support, voting or majority arithmetic, or a maintained resolution register. The published modules run to communication and case management and stop before anything meeting-related. 4 1
The Skeptic
Nothing in the captured pages mentions an owners' meeting, invitations, minutes, voting arithmetic or a Beschluss-Sammlung; the module list runs from Nebenkosten to Zähler and names no meeting or resolution component. On this evidence the meeting is convened, run and recorded entirely outside the system. 4 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
A Mieterportal is listed among the base features, but nothing describes what it actually shows an owner. I found no public information on a per-owner login, owner statements, meeting papers, or a defect form with status visible to the reporter. Nothing here evidences the disclosure duty an Eigentümer can enforce. 2 1
The Advisory Board Member
The pages name a tenant portal, but we found no public information on an owner's login showing statements, documents or meeting papers, or a defect form whose status the reporter can see. For a community the self-service must reach the Eigentümer, and only the tenant side is evidenced. 2 1
The Accountant
A Mieterportal is listed in the plan features, so a portal exists — but the evidence is entirely tenant-facing. I found no public information on per-owner logins, owners' own statements and documents, meeting papers in the portal, or a defect form whose status the reporter can see. 2 4
The Portfolio Manager
A tenant portal is offered as a base feature, but I found no public information on an owner login, per-owner statements, meeting papers or a defect form with status visible to the reporter. The statutory disclosure duty would still land on my staff's desks. 2 4
The Data Protection Officer
A tenant portal with SMS direct messages and a document-intake email are published, but I found no public information on a per-owner login, on how owner and tenant visibility is separated, or on defect reports with status visible to the reporter. A portal exists on the tenant side; the scoping that would let an owner exercise the right to see the records is not evidenced. 2 1
The Skeptic
The only portal named is the Mieterportal, aimed at tenants, with documents arriving via an intake email address. We found no public information on a per-owner login, an owner's view of their statements or meeting papers, or a defect form with status visibility — the owner's right to inspect the records is not addressed on these pages. 2 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
The module list names "Vorgangsmanagement" and nothing more on the building side. I found no public information on defect records with photos and status, work orders to contractors, a recurring maintenance calendar, or statutory inspections for lift, heating or fire safety. A single module name is not an operating record I could defend when something goes wrong. 1
The Advisory Board Member
A generic case-management module is listed, which may hold a ticket per property, but we found no public information on photos and status per defect, contractor assignment, a recurring maintenance calendar, or statutory inspections with stored proof. Nothing here would answer what the administrator knew and when. 4 1
The Accountant
Vorgangsmanagement appears in the published module list, which is where defect intake would live, but the captures stop at the module name. I found no public information on defect records with status and photos, contractor work orders, a recurring maintenance calendar, or statutory inspections with proof of completion stored. 4 1
The Portfolio Manager
Case management appears as a module name alongside AI receipt capture, yet I found no public information on a recurring maintenance calendar, statutory inspections with proof of completion stored, contractor assignment with work orders, or warranty tracking. That is the core of my operating record and it is unevidenced. 4 1
The Data Protection Officer
The module list names "Vorgangsmanagement" and meter management, and I found no public information on contractor assignment with work orders, a recurring maintenance calendar, or statutory inspections such as fire safety and drinking water. A module name with no described defect records, evidence trail or warranty tracking leaves this near the bottom of the scale. 4 1
The Skeptic
The module list names Vorgangsmanagement and Zähler, but the captured pages never describe defect records with photos, contractor assignment, or a recurring maintenance calendar. We found no public information on statutory inspections, warranty periods, or the evidence trail a community would need when something goes wrong; the only automation shown is reminders about open rent. 4 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
A Dokumente module and a document-intake email are listed, which points to central storage with upload. I found no public information on version history, full-text search, retention periods for community records, or a defined handover export for a successor administrator — the only retention statements captured concern job applications and error logs. Handover as a statutory event is not addressed anywhere in the material. 2 1
The Advisory Board Member
A documents module, a document-intake email address and digital postal dispatch are listed, but we found no public information on search, version history, retention periods for community records, or a defined handover export; the only retention statements on the captured pages concern job applications and 90-day error logs. Handover is a statutory event, and nothing published addresses it. 2 4 1
The Accountant
There is a Dokumente module, a Dokumenteneingangsemail for intake, and a DATEV-Export — central storage in some form. I found no public information on version history, search across the archive, retention periods for community records (the only retention statements found cover job applications at six months and Sentry data at 90 days), or a defined handover export for a successor administrator. 2 4 1
The Portfolio Manager
A documents module and a document-intake email exist, which reads as central storage with upload; I found no public information on version history, retention periods for community records, full-text search or a defined handover export for a successor administrator. Handover would be a manual scramble. 2 4 1
The Data Protection Officer
Central documents are a named module with an intake email, and DATEV export gives a defined path for financial data, but I found no public information on versioning, full-text search, retention executed for community records, an access log over the archive, or a handover package for a successor. The only retention commitments published are job applications deleted after six months and error-monitoring data at ninety days — neither touches the property archive. 2 3 4 1
The Skeptic
Central document storage is evidenced as a module plus a document-intake email, and nothing more: the retention statements on the privacy page cover job applications and error logs, not the community's archive. We found no public information on versioning, full-text search, retention periods for property records, or any defined handover export — the DATEV export is an accounting interface, not a successor administrator's package. 2 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 contracting entity is German — Handelsregister Amtsgericht Düsseldorf, USt-IdNr. DE306967777 — and the privacy policy names processors including Frisbii Germany GmbH in Frankfurt, finAPI GmbH and Intercom, with Sentry stated to run on Google Cloud Platform. But I found no public information on where the application itself and its ledger are hosted, or whether the processor list is complete. For the files of forty communities, that gap matters. 3 4
The Advisory Board Member
The contracting entity is a German GmbH with a published imprint, and the privacy policy names its service providers — billing through a Frankfurt firm, banking through a German provider, error monitoring on Google Cloud Platform, live chat through a third party. But we found no public information on where the application and its records are hosted, on the company's ownership, or on where the AI receipt capture processes documents — and for records held in trust for a community, hosting is the answer I want in writing. 3 4
The Accountant
The contracting entity is immocloud GmbH, Toulouser Allee 23a, Düsseldorf (HRB 101443, Amtsgericht Düsseldorf, USt-IdNr. DE306967777), and the privacy policy names its processors: finAPI for banking data, Frisbii Germany for billing, Intercom for live chat, and Sentry for error monitoring 'hosted on Google Cloud Platform' with a DPA and AES-256 encryption. But we found no public information on where the application data itself is hosted or who owns the company — an EU entity with named processors, yet hosting unstated and one processor on US cloud with no stated region. 3 4
The Portfolio Manager
The imprint gives a German GmbH with a Handelsregister entry, and the privacy policy names subprocessors including Frisbii, finAPI, Sentry (hosted on Google Cloud Platform) and Intercom. I found no public information on where the application itself is hosted, on ownership, or on any certification, which keeps this short of a comfortable score. 3 4
The Data Protection Officer
A German contracting entity and named subprocessors — Frisbii in Frankfurt, finAPI, Intercom, and Sentry hosted on Google Cloud Platform — appear in the privacy policy, but I found no public information on where the application and its document store are hosted, and the AI receipt capture names no processor at all, so I cannot tell where a document sent to it goes. Website analytics run through Google Ireland, Facebook Pixel, Hotjar, Microsoft Clarity and others. 3 4 1
The Skeptic
A German contracting entity is documented in the imprint, and the privacy policy names finAPI, Frisbii and Sentry — but Sentry runs on Google Cloud Platform with no region stated, and the site itself carries Google Analytics, Facebook Pixel, Hotjar and Microsoft Clarity. We found no public information on where the application or its documents are hosted, on ownership, or on a complete subprocessor list for the core service. 3 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
The pricing page is structured: units defined (Wohnung, Garage/Stellplatz, Gewerbe), terms of 3 or 12 months with "-10%" on the longer, all prices "netto zzgl. 19 % MwSt.", and Briefversand and digitale Mietverträge flagged as additional costs. But the tier from 50 units is "Auf Anfrage", the amounts of those additional costs are not shown, and I found no public information on setup or migration fees — so the annual invoice for my portfolio is not computable from the public pages alone. 2
The Advisory Board Member
The pricing page states the billing terms — '3 Monate 12 Monate -10%' — that prices are 'netto zzgl. 19 % MwSt.', and what counts as a unit, but we found no public price figure for any tier: the one tier captured reads 'Auf Anfrage' from 50 units up, and the extra costs for postal dispatch and digital tenancy contracts carry no amounts. An administrator could not compute an annual invoice from these pages. 2
The Accountant
The pricing page publishes structure I can work with: terms of '3 Monate' or '12 Monate -10%', a unit defined as 'Wohnung, Garage / Stellplatz oder ein Gewerbe', 'Alle angegebenen Preise netto zzgl. 19 % MwSt.', and named extra costs for Briefversand and digitale Mietverträge. But the only tariff figure captured is 'Tycoon Ab 50 Einheiten* Auf Anfrage', and we found no public information on euro amounts for the other tariffs or on setup and migration fees — so the annual invoice is not computable from what is published. 2
The Portfolio Manager
The pricing page states the unit definition, terms of 3 or 12 months with a 10 percent reduction on the twelve-month option, net prices plus 19 percent VAT, and flags postal dispatch and digital rental contracts as extra costs — but the tier from 50 units upward is "Auf Anfrage". I found no public information on setup or migration fees, so I cannot compute the annual cost for a serious portfolio from public pages alone. 2
The Data Protection Officer
The pricing pages are clear on structure — a unit defined as flat, garage or commercial, terms of 3 or 12 months with a stated discount, net prices plus 19 percent VAT, and postal delivery and digital rental contracts named as extra costs — but the top tier is quoted only as "Auf Anfrage", and I found no public information on the euro amounts for the extra costs or per-unit figures for the tiers. An administrator still cannot compute an annual invoice from these pages. 2
The Skeptic
The pricing pages state the unit definition, billing terms of 3 or 12 months with a 10% discount for twelve, net prices plus 19% VAT, and which extras cost more — but the only tier figure captured is 'Auf Anfrage' for the Tycoon tier from 50 units, the very segment an administrator of communities sits in, and the extras carry no amounts. We found no public information on setup or migration fees or on any exit or export cost. 2
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 | 3 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited 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. Die Seite nennt kein Land ausdrücklich; der Code DE wird aus dem deutschen Handelsregister (Amtsgericht Düsseldorf) und der USt-IdNr. DE306967777 abgeleitet.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency, 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.
- 35 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
- 11 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
- 8 pricing 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
- 8 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
- 7 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 integrations 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 support 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
- 2 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. 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 (12)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage immocloud.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 +2 earlier captures: 11 Sep 2026, 1 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing immocloud.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Imprint immocloud.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Privacy policy immocloud.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Security / trust page www.immocloud.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Data processing agreement (dpa) www.immocloud.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Wirtschaftsplan, Jahresabrechnung & Rücklage — found from sitemap www.immocloud.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Wirtschaftsplan, Jahresabrechnung & Rücklage — found from sitemap www.immocloud.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Owner & tenant self-service — found from sitemap www.immocloud.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Owner & tenant self-service — found from sitemap www.immocloud.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Documents, retention & handover — found from sitemap www.immocloud.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Documents, retention & handover — found from sitemap www.immocloud.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →