Property & WEG Management
IVV Immobilien Software
Provenance unknown 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 IVV Software + Consulting AG · www.ivv.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.
No written verdict for this product
The panel scored IVV Immobilien Software, but the summary our synthesizer wrote did not survive our own contradiction check — twice. Rather than print a paragraph we cannot stand behind, we print none. Every score, rationale and source below is unaffected; read them and draw the conclusion yourself.
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 captured pages describe insurance-sector software built for the VGH group; we found no public information on a Wirtschaftsplan, a Jahresabrechnung in the post-2021 BGH form, distribution keys, or separate handling of the Rücklage. For my communities the statutory financial year simply is not evidenced here. 1
The Advisory Board Member
I check every settlement before recommending it to the assembly, and here I found no public information on a business plan, an annual settlement, distribution keys or the separate trust handling of the reserve fund — the captured page tells the company's insurance-software history instead. No figure can be traced back to a posting on the evidence shown. 1
The Accountant
We found no public information on a Wirtschaftsplan, a Jahresabrechnung with the Abrechnungsspitze shown separately, distribution keys, heating-cost apportionment per the heating-cost ordinance, or the segregated trust holding of a Rücklage. The captured page presents iVAS as software for insurance business, so a community's statutory financial cycle is outside what the published material speaks to. 1
The Portfolio Manager
The captured page evidences only insurance-sector software, a consultation and processing platform for insurer inside and field service; I found no public information on a Wirtschaftsplan, a Jahresabrechnung, distribution keys or separate reserve-fund accounting. For a book of several thousand units, the statutory financial cycle is not evidenced here at all. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The captured material describes software built for insurance houses, and we found no public information on a business plan, annual settlement, distribution keys or separate reserve accounting for a community. Nothing captured evidences any part of the statutory financial cycle. 1
The Skeptic
The only product the captured pages describe is insurance consulting software; I found no public information on a Wirtschaftsplan, on the Jahresabrechnung in the post-2021 form, on distribution keys or on how the Rücklage is held. The statutory financial cycle of a community is simply not evidenced by what I was given to read. 1
Eigentümerversammlung & Beschluss-Sammlung
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Convening, running and recording the owners' meeting — including the resolution register the law requires the administrator to maintain, and the majority arithmetic that decides whether a resolution stands.
0 — No meeting support; invitations and minutes are written elsewhere and the Beschluss-Sammlung is a document somewhere.
3 — Invitation templates and a place to store minutes, but no agenda structure, no voting support and no maintained resolution register.
5 — Agenda-driven invitations respecting the notice period, attendance and proxy recording, voting with the common majority types, and a Beschluss-Sammlung kept as a numbered register.
8 — Quorum and majority computed per resolution type including MEA-weighted and qualified majorities, proxies and voting restrictions handled, minutes generated from the recorded votes, and the register maintained continuously with amendment and invalidation notes as § 24 (7) requires.
10 — The meeting is conducted in the system: hybrid or written circulation procedures supported with their own legal rules, contested resolutions flagged within the challenge period, the register complete and exportable as evidence, and every entry traceable to the meeting that produced it.
The WEG Administrator
We found no public information on convening, notice periods, agenda structure, voting or majority arithmetic, nor on a maintained Beschluss-Sammlung as the law requires of the Verwalter. There is nothing here to run or record an Eigentümerversammlung with. 1
The Advisory Board Member
I keep our resolution register, so I looked for convening support, majority arithmetic and a maintained Beschluss-Sammlung; we found no public information on any meeting support at all, only the history of a platform for insurance advisors. I could not establish which resolutions stand. 1
The Accountant
We found no public information on convening or running an owners' meeting, attendance and proxy recording, majority arithmetic, or a maintained Beschluss-Sammlung. The captured material describes a consultation and processing platform for the interior and field service of an insurance group. 1
The Portfolio Manager
I found no public information on convening owners' meetings, voting and majority arithmetic, or a maintained resolution register; the published material is written for insurance houses, not WEG administration. Not even invitation templates or a place for minutes are evidenced. 1
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public information on convening an owners' meeting, attendance and proxy recording, voting support or a maintained resolution register; the captured product scope is an insurance consulting and processing platform. 1
The Skeptic
I found no public information on convening an owners' meeting, on voting and majority arithmetic, or on a Beschluss-Sammlung maintained as the law requires. The pages captured speak of insurance administration, and meeting support is entirely unevidenced. 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
We found no public information on any owner or tenant portal — no per-owner login, no statements, no meeting papers, no defect or request form. That leaves every disclosure request on the administrator's desk by post and email, the lowest situation described for this criterion. 1
The Advisory Board Member
My right to see the records runs through the portal, but we found no public information on owner logins, per-owner statements, meeting papers or a defect form. On this evidence every request is answered by email or post, which is what I count as no evidenced portal. 1
The Accountant
We found no public information on an owner or tenant portal, per-owner statements, meeting papers or a defect form reaching an administrator. The published material is addressed to insurance staff rather than to owners or tenants of a community. 1
The Portfolio Manager
I found no public information on an owner or tenant portal: no per-owner statements, no meeting papers, no defect or request form. Every owner request would have to be handled outside anything these pages evidence. 1
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public information on an owner or tenant login, per-owner visibility of statements, documents or arrears, or defect reporting. The question of how an owner exercises the right to inspect the records has no captured answer. 1
The Skeptic
No owner login, tenant view, statement display or defect form appears in the captured material; I found no public information on how an owner would exercise their right to see the records or shed routine correspondence into a portal. 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
We found no public information on defect intake and tracking, recurring maintenance obligations, statutory inspections such as lift or fire safety, or contractor assignment with work orders. The building side of the Verwalter's duty is entirely unevidenced in the captured material. 1
The Advisory Board Member
I want the maintenance calendar and the proof for lift, heating and fire-safety inspections; we found no public information on defect intake, recurring schedules, contractor assignment or stored evidence of completion. Without dates and documents I could not answer what the administrator knew and when. 1
The Accountant
We found no public information on defect records, recurring maintenance obligations, statutory inspections, or contractor assignment with a work order. The captured page speaks to insurance business only, so the building side of administration is not evidenced. 1
The Portfolio Manager
I found no public information on defect intake and tracking, recurring maintenance calendars, statutory inspection scheduling with proof stored, or contractor assignment with work orders. These are the throughput tools my whole operation runs on, and not even a per-property ticket list is evidenced. 1
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public information on defect intake and tracking, recurring maintenance obligations, statutory inspections or contractor assignment; nothing captured concerns building operation at all. 1
The Skeptic
I found no public information on defect intake and tracking, recurring maintenance schedules, statutory inspections or contractor assignment. Nothing captured speaks to the building side of property management. 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
We found no public information on structured document storage, retention periods, or a defined export for the statutory handover of a community's records. Since an appointment is finite by law and the records belong to the community, an exit I cannot evidence is an exit I cannot plan for. 1
The Advisory Board Member
Handover is a statutory event in a community's life, so I looked for retention periods, version history and a defined export for a successor administrator; we found no public information on any of these. The captured page shows me no document management I can verify. 1
The Accountant
We found no public information on structured document storage per community or unit, retention periods, version history, or a defined handover export a successor administrator could load. Handover as a statutory event is not addressed in the captured material. 1
The Portfolio Manager
I found no public information on structured document management, retention periods, versioning or a defined handover export of a community's records. Onboarding a new WEG in days rather than a quarter has no evidenced foundation here. 1
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public information on archive structure, retention periods, an access log over stored records, or a defined handover export for a community. A community leaving this vendor has no captured exit path. 1
The Skeptic
Nothing captured addresses a searchable archive, retention periods, versioning or a handover export a successor administrator could actually load; I found no public information on documents, retention or the exit of a community with its own records. 1
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where the community's financial and personal records live, who the contracting entity is, and which subprocessors touch them. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; scored here as this buyer weighs it.
0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated or non-EU, subprocessors unnamed.
3 — EU hosting offered as an option while the contracting entity is non-EU, or the subprocessor list is absent.
5 — EU hosting as standard and an EU contracting entity, but parts of the chain — document OCR, AI features, support tooling — are non-EU without an explained safeguard.
8 — German or EU hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, complete subprocessor list published, any non-EU processing named with its legal basis.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: vendor, entity, hosting and every subprocessor European, certification published, and an export that keeps the community compliant for the full retention period after the appointment ends.
The WEG Administrator
The contracting entity is positively German — ivv GmbH, founded 1993, held by German public insurers — which is more than many can show. But we found no public information on hosting location, named infrastructure, subprocessors or certifications, so the data path behind the German signature remains unknown. 1
The Advisory Board Member
The contracting entity is ivv GmbH, founded in 1993 by German public insurers, so a community would at least face a German company; but there is no record of where hosting sits or which subprocessors touch the data, and no certification is published. Half the chain stays invisible to me as an owner. 1
The Accountant
The captured page names a German company held by German public insurers, which is the one European element the record establishes. We found no public information on hosting location, any subprocessor list, or certification, so where a community's financial records would live and who would touch them is unstated. 1
The Portfolio Manager
The captured pages give different figures for the contracting entity — an AG in the vendor heading and a GmbH on the company page — but both point to a German company founded 1993 and held by German public insurers. I found no public information on hosting location, subprocessors or certifications, so beyond the entity itself I cannot see where a community's records would live or who processes them. 1
The Data Protection Officer
A German company formed by German public insurers is named, though the captured pages give different names for the contracting entity. For everything this buyer weighs most — hosting location, the subprocessors that touch owners' bank details and arrears, any certification — we found no public information. 1
The Skeptic
The page self-describes a German company founded by German public insurers, which points to an EU contracting entity, but I found no public information on hosting location, the infrastructure behind it, subprocessors or certification. A German name on the letterhead does not evidence the chain. 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
We found no public prices at all — no per-unit or per-community figure, no module pricing, no setup, migration or minimum-term costs, and no VAT treatment. Every number would have to come out of a sales conversation, which is the lowest situation described for pricing transparency. 1
The Advisory Board Member
No price is stated on the captured page — not per unit, not per community, not for setup or migration; every figure would have to come from a sales conversation. An administrator could not compute the annual cost for the units under management from public pages alone. 1
The Accountant
We found no public information on prices of any kind — no per-unit or per-community fee, no module prices, no billing period, term, setup or migration costs. An administrator could not begin to compute an annual cost for the units under management from what is published. 1
The Portfolio Manager
I found no public prices of any kind: no per-unit or per-community figure, no billing period, no setup or migration costs, no VAT treatment. An administrator cannot compute a single euro of annual cost from these pages. 1
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public information on prices — no per-unit or per-community figure, billing period, minimum term, or setup cost — so the annual cost of managing a given number of units is not computable from the captured pages. 1
The Skeptic
I found no public information on pricing at all: no per-unit or per-community figure, no billing period, no setup, migration or exit costs. Nothing from which an administrator could begin to compute an annual invoice. 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 | 3/3 pts | 2 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 22 Sep 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- We found no public information on pricing on the pages we read (ivv.de, ivv.de/de/zahlen-daten-fakten/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 (ivv.de, ivv.de/de/zahlen-daten-fakten/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
- The panel’s written verdict is withheld: our own re-read found claims in it that the evidence does not carry, and a second synthesis did not fix them. The scores and the material below are unaffected. Know more? Tell us
Sources (2)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.