whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Property & WEG Management

Karthago

EU-Made Report an error

Panel 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 Skeptic

Weighted verdict

Has read many pages claiming "WEG-konform" and wants the feature that makes it true — the post-2021 settlement form, the maintained Beschluss-Sammlung, the majority arithmetic. Also reads for the per-unit minimum, the setup fee, and what it costs a community to leave with its own records.

Same scores as the panel view — this lens weights them the way this judge cares.

Scored by The Skeptic

Wirtschaftsplan, Jahresabrechnung & Rücklage

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Eigentümerversammlung & Beschluss-Sammlung

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Owner & tenant self-service

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Maintenance, defects & contractors

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Documents, retention & handover

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

European sovereignty

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Pricing transparency not rated — the vendor publishes no price

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.

Report an error

The Skeptic

No price appears on any captured page; the only route in is a consultation form demanding "Verwaltete Einheiten" and "Benötigte Arbeitsplätze" — the definition of every quote being a sales conversation. Per-unit minimum, setup fee, term and exit costs are all invisible. 2 3

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

1 of 4 dimensions proven

Built only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.

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

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.

Do you know more about Karthago? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (4)

The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.

  1. 1 Vendor homepage www.karthago.de Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Imprint www.karthago.de Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Privacy policy www.karthago.de Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Security / trust page www.aareon.de Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →