Property & WEG Management
Novacom
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Novacom Software AG · www.novacom.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
Novacom's captured pages market Nova, conversational AI agents that handle telephone, e-mail and WhatsApp around the clock, with case studies from insurance, retail and mobility — VW, Mercedes, Stellantis, and the LDB Gruppe, whose agent "Carla" takes thousands of calls daily. Judged as WEG management software, the pages show almost nothing: WEG accounting, assembly and resolutions, and documents and handover sit at 0, with no public information on a business plan, annual settlement, owners' meetings, a resolution register, or a defined handover export. The strongest criterion is sovereignty, where scores cluster at 3-4 on a Berlin company founded in 1995, development in Germany, and claimed DSGVO conformity and TISAX certification; the judges who score 3 weigh the unanswered hosting-location and subprocessor questions more heavily than those who score 4. A smaller split runs through owner self-service and maintenance and defects at 0-1: two judges credit the always-on intake channel for simple service requests, while the rest score 0 and hold that a call-centre front door is not owner access or an operating record. No prices are published.
Speaks for it
- Sovereignty is the highest-scoring criterion, with scores clustered at 3-4.
- Contracting entity is a German company at Kantstraße 63a, Berlin, founded in 1995, with development in Germany.
- Vendor states DSGVO conformity and TISAX certification.
- The round-the-clock telephone, e-mail and WhatsApp intake channel drew 1 from two judges on owner self-service and maintenance and defects.
Held against it
- WEG accounting, assembly and resolutions, and documents and handover cluster at 0.
- No public information on hosting location or any subprocessor behind the AI processing of conversations.
- No public information on per-owner logins, statements, documents or meeting papers behind the general intake channel.
- Intake without tracking — no public information on defect records, contractor work orders or proof of statutory inspections.
- No public prices of any kind; the only contact evidenced is info@novacom.de.
Best for
- You want an always-on telephone, e-mail and WhatsApp channel that answers simple service inquiries and books appointments.
- You weight a German contracting entity, development in Germany and stated DSGVO conformity and TISAX certification highly; sovereignty is where scores cluster highest, at 3-4.
- You are sourcing conversational AI for customer communication in insurance, retail or mobility rather than statutory WEG administration.
Avoid if
- You need the statutory WEG financial cycle — business plan, annual settlement, distribution keys, reserve handling — in the system; WEG accounting scores sit at 0.
- You must convene and minute owners' meetings and keep a maintained resolution register; assembly and resolutions scores sit at 0.
- Your owners need their own logins to statements, documents and meeting papers rather than a general service line.
- A defined export of the community's records at handover time matters to you; documents and handover scores sit at 0.
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 present conversational AI agents for telephone, e-mail and WhatsApp serving insurance, retail and mobility clients — we found no public information on a business plan, an annual settlement, distribution keys or separate reserve handling. Nothing here would carry a community through the March settlement run. 1
The Advisory Board Member
The captured pages present an AI agent for customer communication aimed at insurers, retailers and mobility companies; I found no public information on a business plan, an annual settlement, distribution keys or separate handling of the reserve fund. As an owner who checks the administrator's settlement, I have nothing here that I could follow back to a posting. 1
The Accountant
The captured pages present an AI communication agent for phone, e-mail and WhatsApp in insurance, retail and mobility; we found no public information on a business plan, annual settlement, distribution keys, heating-cost apportionment or the separate handling of reserve funds. Absent any evidence of the statutory financial cycle, this sits at the bottom anchor. 1
The Portfolio Manager
The captured page describes AI dialogue agents for insurance, retail and mobility clients; we found no public information on a business plan, annual settlement, distribution keys or separate reserve handling. For my portfolio that means I cannot run a single community's financial cycle on what is published. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The captured vendor pages describe AI conversation agents serving insurers, retailers and mobility companies; we found no public information on a business plan, an annual settlement, distribution keys or reserve funds held separately in trust. Nothing on these pages evidences the statutory community financial cycle. 1
The Skeptic
The captured pages market AI dialogue agents to insurers, retailers and mobility groups; I found no public information on a Wirtschaftsplan, a Jahresabrechnung in the post-2021 form, distribution keys, or the separate handling of the Rücklage. For a community's statutory financial cycle that is the bottom of the scale. 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 an owners' meeting, agenda structure, notice periods, voting support or a maintained resolution register; the pages do not address the owners' meeting at all. Convening, minutes and the register would remain entirely on the administrator's desk. 1
The Advisory Board Member
I found no public information on convening an owners' meeting, agenda structure, voting support or a maintained resolution register — the pages speak of telephone, e-mail and WhatsApp dialogues for automotive clients, not of Eigentümerversammlungen. Without a numbered Beschluss-Sammlung I could not even read up on what my community has resolved. 1
The Accountant
We found no public information on convening owners' meetings, agendas, voting, majority arithmetic or a maintained resolution register; the pages describe automated dialogues for appointment scheduling at automotive clients. Nothing evidences even template-level meeting support. 1
The Portfolio Manager
The vendor page is about phone, email and WhatsApp automation; we found no public information on convening owners' meetings, voting and majority arithmetic or a maintained resolution register. Nothing published would let me convene one Versammlung, let alone record its resolutions as the law requires. 1
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public information on convening an owners' meeting, recording attendance, proxies or votes, or maintaining the resolution register the administrator must keep. The automation evidenced is round-the-clock call handling and appointment booking, not meeting administration. 1
The Skeptic
Everything captured concerns automated inbound calls, service requests and appointment booking; I found no public information on convening an owners' meeting, agenda handling, voting, majority arithmetic, or a maintained Beschluss-Sammlung with amendment and invalidation notes. 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
The agent answers telephone, e-mail and WhatsApp around the clock and handles simple service requests and appointments, which could absorb some routine calls, but we found no public information on per-owner logins, statements, documents or meeting papers. A front desk for every industry is not the access an owner is entitled to. 1
The Advisory Board Member
There is a round-the-clock omnichannel channel that answers simple service inquiries, which is a reachable front door; but I found no public information on a per-owner login, personal statements, meeting papers or a defect form reaching an administrator. An owner's right to see the records of their own community finds no support in what is published. 1
The Accountant
The pages show an agent answering simple service inquiries and scheduling appointments around the clock across channels, but we found no public information on a per-owner login, statements, documents, meeting papers or a defect form with status visibility. Without a scoped portal the self-service duty falls back to correspondence, automated or not. 1
The Portfolio Manager
An agent taking calls and booking appointments is not an owner portal; we found no public information on per-owner logins, statements, meeting papers or defect reporting with visible status. The case study is a car-service hotline handling thousands of calls a day, which says nothing about an owner's right to inspect records. 1
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public information on an owner or tenant portal, per-owner visibility over statements, documents or meeting papers, or any access log. The only customer-facing capability evidenced is an AI agent handling thousands of daily calls, e-mail and WhatsApp messages. 1
The Skeptic
The round-the-clock omnichannel promise is a call-centre story — phone, email and WhatsApp for customers like car brands — and I found no public information on a per-owner login, per-unit statements, meeting papers, or a defect form reaching the administrator. 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
Simple service requests and appointment scheduling are taken by the agent, but we found no public information on defect records per property, contractor assignment, recurring maintenance calendars or statutory inspections with proof of completion. Intake without tracking leaves no operating record for when something goes wrong. 1
The Advisory Board Member
The agent takes calls and books appointments day and night — one case study has it handling thousands of calls daily — so an automated intake channel exists. Beyond intake, I found no public information on defect records per unit, work orders for contractors, inspection duties or warranty periods; the evidence trail I would need when something goes wrong is not something the pages show. 1
The Accountant
We found no public information on defect records, recurring maintenance calendars, statutory inspections or contractor work orders; the evidence covers AI call handling and cost-reduction claims of up to 50 percent for VW, Mercedes and Stellantis service lines. No building-side operating record is evidenced. 1
The Portfolio Manager
We found no public information on defect records per unit, contractor work orders, recurring maintenance calendars or stored proof of completion for statutory inspections of lifts, heating, fire safety or drinking water. That evidence trail is exactly what I live on, and the captured page speaks only to simple service calls and appointment scheduling for automotive clients. 1
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public information on defect intake, recurring maintenance obligations, contractor work orders or stored proof of statutory inspections. The pages evidence customer-service automation, and nothing on the building side. 1
The Skeptic
I found no public information on defect records, contractor work orders, a recurring maintenance calendar, or statutory inspections with proof of completion; the pages describe dialogue automation, not the building side of property administration. 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 management, version history, retention periods, or a defined export of a community's records. There is nothing in evidence that a successor administrator could load at the end of an appointment. 1
The Advisory Board Member
I found no public information on structured document management, version history, retention periods or any handover export of a community's records. When a Verwalter's appointment ends, the published pages give me nothing that would carry the archive to a successor. 1
The Accountant
We found no public information on document storage, retention periods, versioning or a defined handover export of a community's records. The captured pages give no basis for any archive capability at all. 1
The Portfolio Manager
We found no public information on structured document storage per community, retention periods, version history or a defined handover export. Handover is a statutory event on my clock, and there is nothing published from which to plan a community's exit. 1
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public information on structured document storage, retention periods that execute, version history or a defined handover export of a community's records. For an archive that would hold names, addresses and bank details of people who never chose this processor, none of this is answered publicly. 1
The Skeptic
I found no public information on structured document storage per community, retention periods, versioning, or a defined handover export in open formats. Nothing published lets a community judge what leaving with its own records would look like. 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 pages name a Berlin company as the contracting entity, describe development in Germany and claim GDPR conformity and TISAX certification, but we found no public information on hosting location or on the subprocessors an AI product inevitably relies on. A German contracting entity with an undisclosed processing chain does not get far past the low bar. 1
The Advisory Board Member
A German GmbH in Berlin, founded in 1995, developing in Germany, with DSGVO conformity and TISAX certification claimed — that is a European footing. But I found no public information on hosting location, named infrastructure or a subprocessor list, and the certifications rest on the vendor's own statement rather than independently collected attributes. 1
The Accountant
The contracting entity is a German GmbH at Kantstraße 63a in Berlin, founded 1995, with development in Germany and a published claim of DSGVO conformity and TISAX certification. However, we found no public information on where hosting runs or on any named infrastructure, and no subprocessor list appears, which caps this between the bottom anchors. 1
The Portfolio Manager
The contracting entity is a Berlin company, the software is described as developed in Germany, and the page claims DSGVO conformity and TISAX certification — a real start for a firm like mine. But hosting location is unstated and no subprocessor list is published, so I cannot yet verify the chain my communities' financial records would travel. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The contracting entity is a German company in Berlin, founded in 1995, with public claims of DSGVO conformity, TISAX certification and development in Germany. But we found no public information on where the AI processes telephone, e-mail and WhatsApp conversations, on the hosting location, or on any subprocessor, so the chain that touches personal data cannot be traced from the captured pages. 1
The Skeptic
The contracting entity is a Berlin company claiming DSGVO conformity and TISAX certification, but I found no public information on hosting location or on any subprocessor — and an AI-agent product processing conversations across channels is exactly where a named chain matters. Entity in the EU with hosting and subprocessors unanswered is a partial picture, not a sovereign one. 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
The only figure on the captured pages is a marketing claim of up to 50 % cost reduction, which is not a price; we found no public prices for any module, term, setup or billing period. Every real annual cost for the units under management would have to come from a sales conversation. 1
The Advisory Board Member
The pages advertise satisfaction above 90 percent and cost reductions of up to 50 percent, yet I found no public price for any licence, module or setup — only an e-mail address for enquiries. No administrator could compute the annual cost for the units under management from this. 1
The Accountant
No public price appears anywhere on the captured page — not per unit, not per community, not as a headline — so the real annual cost cannot be computed from public pages. Every figure would have to come from a sales conversation. 1
The Portfolio Manager
No price of any kind appears on the captured page; we found no per-unit or per-community rate, billing period, minimum term, setup or migration cost. The only figure is a savings claim of up to 50 percent on service costs, which is not a number I can put into an annual invoice for the units under management. 1
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public prices at all: no per-unit or per-community figure, no module prices, no minimum term, setup or migration costs and no VAT treatment. The only contact evidenced is an e-mail address, so an annual cost cannot be computed from public pages. 1
The Skeptic
We found no public information on prices — no per-unit or per-community figure, no billing period, no setup or migration fee, no VAT treatment — only an info address and a claim of fast setup. An administrator cannot compute any part of the annual cost from what is published. 1
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 (novacom.de). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- 2 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
Sources (1)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.novacom.de Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →