Property & WEG Management
Karthago
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 Karthago Systeme GmbH · www.karthago.de
Compare with DOMUS → 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
Karthago (Karthago Systeme GmbH; the consent form and contact address name Aareon) is ERP software for mid-sized and large property and WEG administrations. The bench scored it strongest on wirtschaftsplan, Jahresabrechnung & Rücklage and sovereignty, both spanning 3-4, credited to a named WEG- & Nebenkostenabrechnung module beside double-entry bookkeeping, the vendor's claim of German cloud servers with 'zertifiziertem Datenschutz', and a genuine on-premise option — though the evidence never shows a Wirtschaftsplan, distribution keys or the Rücklage kept apart. The weakest criterion is eigentümerversammlung & Beschluss-Sammlung: nothing on invitations, voting or the Beschluss-Sammlung. Owner & tenant self-service sits at 1-1, with only 'Kommunikation mit Eigentümern und Mietern' claimed and no portal, per-owner login or statement view. Judges split, though below the threshold for flagging a split: maintenance, defects & contractors and documents, retention & handover span 2-3 and sovereignty 3-4, with the portfolio-manager judge at the low end each time, holding that module labels without inspection calendars, stored proof of completion or a defined handover export will not carry a several-thousand-unit portfolio. Pricing shows no figures — the only route is a consultation form — and was not counted in the verdicts.
Speaks for it
- WEG- & Nebenkostenabrechnung is a named module beside double-entry bookkeeping, scoring 3-4 on wirtschaftsplan, Jahresabrechnung & Rücklage
- Cloud hosting is claimed on German servers with 'zertifiziertem Datenschutz', alongside an on-premise option
- Automatisierter Rechnungsimport and integriertes Dokumentenmanagement appear as named modules
- Aimed at mid-sized and large administrations, covering both Mietverwaltung and Sondereigentumsverwaltung
Held against it
- Eigentümerversammlung & Beschluss-Sammlung reads 0-0 in the score table: no invitations, voting or Beschluss-Sammlung evidenced anywhere
- Owner & tenant self-service sits at 1-1: no portal, per-owner login, statement access or defect form appears
- 'Digitales Facility Management' is a module label without evidenced defect records, inspection calendars or contractor work orders
- No versioning, retention periods or defined handover export evidenced, leaving the statutory Verwaltungsübergabe unaddressed
- No subprocessor list is published and the evidence records legal entity jurisdiction and subprocessors as unknown, with Aareon surfacing only in the consent form and TeamViewer unexplained in the support chain
Best for
- You run a mid-sized or large German administration and want bookkeeping plus WEG-/Nebenkosten settlement in one system, keeping assemblies and resolutions outside it
- You require an on-premise deployment where, per the vendor, all data and systems stay in your hands
- Your owner communication already runs by correspondence and you do not need an owner portal
Avoid if
- You need meeting support — invitations, agendas, voting arithmetic, a maintained Beschluss-Sammlung — inside the product
- You expect owners to self-serve statements, inspection rights or defect reports through a portal
- You must evidence statutory inspections (lift, heating, drinking water) with stored proof of completion
- You cannot sign without a published subprocessor list and a confirmed contracting entity and jurisdiction
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
A 'WEG- & Nebenkostenabrechnung' module beside double-entry bookkeeping is claimed, which is more than templates — but the captured pages never mention a Wirtschaftsplan, configurable distribution keys, separate Rücklage accounting or the post-2021 BGH settlement form, and that is precisely what I must see before the March run. 3 1
The Advisory Board Member
Doppelte Buchhaltung and a WEG- & Nebenkostenabrechnung module exist, so the settlement is more than a template someone fills by hand. But the evidence is silent on a Wirtschaftsplan, on distribution keys (MEA, units, consumption) and on the Rücklage held separately in trust — and a settlement whose keys I cannot check and whose arithmetic I cannot follow back to postings is not one I would recommend to the assembly. 1 3
The Accountant
"Doppelte Buchhaltung" and a "WEG- & Nebenkostenabrechnung" module are named, so this is more than raw bookkeeping — but the evidence says nothing about a Wirtschaftsplan, configurable distribution keys, or the Rücklage as segregated trust money, and nothing on the Abrechnungsspitze or HeizkostenV apportionment. A settlement module I cannot trace to keys or segregated reserves is template-level in my books. 1 3
The Portfolio Manager
The module list names Doppelte Buchhaltung and 'WEG- & Nebenkostenabrechnung', so a settlement capability exists, but the evidence is silent on Wirtschaftsplan, distribution keys, Rücklage separation, BGH form or dunning. With several thousand units I cannot confirm the reserve is even booked apart from operating funds — rubric level 3 is the most I can honestly give a nameplate module. 3 1
The Data Protection Officer
Doppelte Buchhaltung and a WEG-/Nebenkosten-Abrechnung module are named, which is more than plain bookkeeping, but the evidence is silent on Wirtschaftsplan, distribution keys, trust treatment of the Rücklage and the post-2021 BGH settlement form — none of the statutory specifics can be credited. 1 3
The Skeptic
"WEG- & Nebenkostenabrechnung" appears as a named module next to double-entry bookkeeping, so a settlement function exists — but the evidence never shows a Wirtschaftsplan, a distribution key, the Rücklage separated from ordinary balances, or the Abrechnungsspitze the BGH has required since 2021. A feature tile is not a settlement form. 1 3
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 captured pages mentions convening, notice periods, voting or a Beschluss-Sammlung, and the module list contains no meeting component — invitations, minutes and the register would stay in Word and a folder, which is the anchor-zero situation. 3 1
The Advisory Board Member
Nothing on invitations, notice periods, agendas, voting arithmetic or a maintained Beschluss-Sammlung appears anywhere in the evidence; the nearest fact is 'Kommunikation mit Eigentümern und Mietern', which is correspondence, not a meeting. As the evidence stands, the resolution register is a document somewhere else — rubric level 0. 1
The Accountant
The evidence is entirely silent on convening, agendas, minutes, majority arithmetic or a Beschluss-Sammlung; the only owner-facing mention is generic "Kommunikation mit Eigentümern und Mietern". No meeting support is evidenced at all, which the anchors score as zero. 1
The Portfolio Manager
Zero evidence: the module list and the product scope statement cover master data, billing and owner communication, and not a word about Versammlung, invitations, minutes or a Beschluss-Sammlung. Meetings and the statutory resolution register evidently stay entirely outside the system, which is an anchor-0. 3 1
The Data Protection Officer
The module list and the product-scope text name no meeting function at all — no invitations, no voting support, no Beschluss-Sammlung — and on this sheet absence of evidence is the evidence: the capability does not exist. 1 3
The Skeptic
The evidence is entirely silent on meetings: no invitation, agenda, voting, or the Beschluss-Sammlung the law obliges the administrator to maintain, and the vendor's own "alles in einer Lösung" claim enumerates everything the product does without any of it. Silence at this criterion is the anchor-zero case. 1 3
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 vendor claims communication with owners and tenants in one solution, but no portal, per-owner login, statement download or defect form is evidenced anywhere — every record request still lands on my desk as correspondence. 1 3
The Advisory Board Member
The only owner-facing capability evidenced is that communication with owners and tenants happens 'in einer Lösung'; there is no portal, no per-owner login, no statements or meeting papers on demand, and no defect form that reaches the administrator. I cannot confirm a single owners' right of inspection is self-served, so this scores just above nothing. 1
The Accountant
Communication with owners and tenants is claimed inside the one solution, but no owner portal, per-owner login, statement access or defect form is evidenced anywhere — the only form the evidence shows is the vendor's own sales consultation. Without any per-owner scoping evidence I cannot credit real self-service. 1 3
The Portfolio Manager
All I have is the marketing line 'Kommunikation mit Eigentümern und Mietern – alles in einer Lösung' — no per-owner login, no statements, no meeting papers, no defect form, no tenant/owner separation evidenced. Requests presumably still land on my staff, so this sits just above nothing. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The only owner-facing claim is 'Kommunikation mit Eigentümern und Mietern' inside the administrator's tool; there is no portal, no per-owner login, and — my core demand — not one word on separating owner and tenant visibility or logging who saw whose arrears. 1 2
The Skeptic
The scope statement claims "Kommunikation mit Eigentümern und Mietern" but no portal, per-owner login, statement view, or defect form is evidenced anywhere — communication could equally be post. I allow one point for owners and tenants being addressed at all, nothing more. 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
'Digitales Facility Management' appears in the modules list and nothing more: no defect records with status, no recurring maintenance calendar, no statutory inspection tracking with proof of completion — I could not schedule a lift inspection or a Trinkwasser check on this evidence. 3
The Advisory Board Member
'Digitales Facility Management' appears as a module name and nothing more — no defect intake with status, no recurring maintenance calendar with reminders, no statutory inspection records, no contractor handling. A label without substance sits at the ticket-list anchor, and the evidence trail that would show what the administrator knew and when is absent. 3
The Accountant
"Digitales Facility Management" appears in the module list, which is more than a notebook, but the evidence shows no defect records with status, no recurring-maintenance calendar, no statutory inspection tracking and no contractor work orders. I credit the module's existence, not capabilities the evidence does not evidence. 3
The Portfolio Manager
'Digitales Facility Management' as a module name is the entire evidence — nothing on defect routing to the responsible trade, statutory inspection calendars (lift, heating, fire safety, drinking water) or stored proof of completion. The exact machinery I run my portfolio on is unevidenced, so this is barely off the floor. 3
The Data Protection Officer
'Digitales Facility Management' appears as a bare module label; nothing evidences defect records with status, contractor work orders, statutory inspection schedules with stored proof of completion, or warranty tracking, so I can only credit a ticket-list level at best. 3
The Skeptic
"Digitales Facility Management" is a label in the module list, not a functioning record: no defect intake, no recurring maintenance calendar, no statutory inspection proof, no contractor work orders. That is exactly the tile-without-mechanism the 3-anchor describes. 3
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
Integrated document management is confirmed, which gives central storage, but versioning, retention periods, full-text search and a defined handover export are all unevidenced — and a community's records belong to the WEG, not to my licence. 3
The Advisory Board Member
'Integriertes Dokumentenmanagement' suggests central storage, but the evidence says nothing about search, version history, retention periods or any defined handover export. Handover of our records to a successor is a statutory event, and as evidenced here it would still mean copying folders. 3
The Accountant
"Integriertes Dokumentenmanagement" is named, but there is no versioning, no stated retention policy and no defined handover export — rubric level 3 territory. The Verwaltungsübergabe is a statutory event and it is completely unaddressed. 3
The Portfolio Manager
'Integriertes Dokumentenmanagement' is named and the on-premise option puts data 'in Ihrer Hand', but there is nothing on versioning, statutory retention periods or a structured handover export a successor could load. Handover of a WEG is a statutory event for me, and the evidence treats it as a non-topic. 3
The Data Protection Officer
Integrated document management is claimed, but retention periods that actually execute, version history and an access log over the archive are all silent, and no defined handover export exists — for a system holding bank details and arrears of people who never chose the vendor, that silence is the finding. 1 3
The Skeptic
An integrated document management module exists, but the evidence shows no versioning, no retention periods, and no defined export — the exit, which for a WEG is a statutory event, is completely unevidenced. I cannot credit a handover capability nobody has shown me. 3
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
German cloud servers are confirmed in the vendor's own words and on-premise keeps everything in my building — genuine points — but the contracting entity's jurisdiction is flagged unconfirmed, the subprocessor list is absent, and 'zertifizierter Datenschutz' is a marketing phrase, not a published certificate. 1 2 3
The Advisory Board Member
German servers with 'zertifizierter Datenschutz' are stated as the cloud standard and the vendor is German by provenance, which is better than hosting-as-option — but the contracting entity turns out to be Aareon with jurisdiction unconfirmed, infrastructure unnamed, and no subprocessor list anywhere, with TeamViewer in support touching our screens without a stated basis. Missing-evidence pulls this down to the anchor that matches an absent subprocessor list, nudged up only by the German-server claim. 1 2 3
The Accountant
German cloud servers are explicitly claimed with certified data protection, and on-premise keeps every posting in the Verwaltung's own hands — genuinely good signals. But the subprocessor list is absent, the hosting infrastructure is unnamed beyond "deutsche Server", and the contracting structure is muddied by Aareon appearing in the consent text without clarification, so the anchor that punishes an absent subprocessor list caps this. 1 2 3
The Portfolio Manager
German servers with 'zertifiziertem Datenschutz' are claimed and a real on-premise option exists, which I value, but the contracting entity's jurisdiction is unconfirmed (an Aareon entity surfaces only in the contact trail) and there is no subprocessor list at all. EU hosting with an absent subprocessor list is precisely the anchor-3 state. 1 3 2
The Data Protection Officer
German servers with 'zertifiziertem Datenschutz' plus a full on-premise option are genuine positives, but no certification or infrastructure is named, no subprocessor list exists, and there is no answer on where the automated invoice import sends a document; the privacy page itself routes personal data to Aareon and TeamViewer sits unlisted in the support chain. 1 2 3
The Skeptic
German cloud servers with "zertifiziertem Datenschutz" plus a genuine on-premise option are real and better than hosting-as-an-afterthought — but the contracting entity is unresolved (the consent form names Aareon while the vendor's jurisdiction is formally unknown), no subprocessor list is published, and TeamViewer sits unexplained in the support chain. Subprocessor list absent is the 3-anchor; standard German hosting earns a step above it. 1 2 3
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 appears anywhere in the captured pages; the only pricing signal is a consultation form demanding managed units and required workstations, meaning a quote exists only after a sales conversation — the exact anchor-zero case. 2 3
The Advisory Board Member
Not one number appears in the evidence; the only route to a price is a consultation form that demands my managed units and required workstations before anyone speaks to me, and on-premise 'keine Mietkosten' hints at a licence without stating one. That is rubric level 0 exactly — every quote a sales conversation. 1 3
The Accountant
Not a single price appears in the captured pages; the only commercial path is a consultation form demanding managed units and workstation counts — the textbook "every quote is a sales conversation". A Verwalter cannot compute any annual cost from these pages. 3
The Portfolio Manager
The only route to a number is a Beratungsgespräch form demanding my managed units and workstation count — no public prices of any kind. I cannot compute an annual cost per unit across my portfolio without a sales call, which is the definition of rubric level 0. 3 2
The Data Protection Officer
No price figure appears anywhere on the evidence; the only route to cost is a consultation form harvesting Verwaltete Einheiten and Benötigte Arbeitsplätze — the textbook sales conversation of rubric level 0. 2 3
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 | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | EU only ⚠ unverified | 3/3 pts | 1 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. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency. The claim is product marketing copy only; the privacy policy excerpt (S3) contains no server-location details, and the German-server guarantee is limited to the cloud offering.
- 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 could not confirm any pricing information on the vendor’s own pages as captured, so this page shows none rather than a statement we cannot stand behind. Know more? Tell us
- We found no public information on compliance on the pages we read (karthago.de, karthago.de/impressum, karthago.de/datenschutz, aareon.de/compliance). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- 6 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
- 1 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is 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 (4)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.karthago.de Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Imprint www.karthago.de Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.karthago.de Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Security / trust page www.aareon.de Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →