Property & WEG Management
vermietet.de
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Scout24 SE · vermietet.de
Compare with immocloud → 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
vermietet.de is a landlord-facing portfolio tool from Scout24 SE of Munich, included in the bench — by its own provenance note — to be judged against WEG duties it does not target. The mismatch is the headline: eigentümerversammlung & Beschluss-Sammlung, owner & tenant self-service and maintenance, defects & contractors sit at 0 across the board, and wirtschaftsplan, Jahresabrechnung & Rücklage clusters at 0-1 because the only settlement on record is a tenant-facing Nebenkostenabrechnung — no Wirtschaftsplan, no WEG-Jahresabrechnung, no Rücklage. What survives is a computable per-unit price (9,90€/month base including one unit, plus 0,99€ per additional unit, monthly billing, 30-day all-features trial that ends automatically with no credit card or bank data required) and central document storage with OCR upload and templates — though without versioning, retention or handover export. Sovereignty scores 2-3 because the evidence records no sovereignty attributes; VAT treatment is unstated. No split between the judges was large enough to flag.
Speaks for it
- Publicly computable price of 9,90€/month base including one unit plus 0,99€ per additional unit, monthly billing, cancellable anytime
- 30-day trial includes all features, ends automatically, and requires neither credit card nor bank data
- Central document storage with OCR upload, document-analysis assistant and templates
- Vendor is Scout24 SE of Munich, an EU contracting entity
- Automated rent receipt check plus an income/expense overview for the landlord's own portfolio
Held against it
- Zero on eigentümerversammlung & Beschluss-Sammlung, owner & tenant self-service and maintenance, defects & contractors — no meeting, owner-portal or defect-tracking capability anywhere in the record
- No Wirtschaftsplan, WEG-Jahresabrechnung, distribution keys or Rücklage separation
- Sheet records no sovereignty attributes — hosting location, subprocessor list and certification all unstated
- VAT treatment and setup/migration costs are not stated
Best for
- You are a private landlord tracking rent receipts, income/expense and tenant-facing Nebenkostenabrechnung for your own units.
- You want a flat, publicly computable per-unit price and can test all features free for 30 days without card or bank data.
- You mainly need central document storage with OCR upload and templates for a small rental portfolio.
Avoid if
- You administer a WEG and need meeting convening, voting, a Beschluss-Sammlung or an owner self-service portal.
- You need a WEG-Jahresabrechnung with distribution keys, a Wirtschaftsplan or Rücklage separation.
- You require a stated hosting location, a subprocessor list or certification for community records.
- You need document versioning, retention rules or a defined handover export at a change of administrator.
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
Income/expense overview, rent receipt checks and a landlord-tenant Nebenkostenabrechnung are all the evidence evidences; no Wirtschaftsplan, no WEG-Jahresabrechnung, no distribution keys, no Rücklage separation. That is general bookkeeping with a rental utility statement — rubric level 0 territory, one point for the settlement helper existing. 1 2
The Advisory Board Member
Every money feature is landlord-side: an automatic rent receipt check, an income/expense overview, and a Nebenkostenabrechnung addressed to the tenant. No Wirtschaftsplan, no Jahresabrechnung in the form the owners are entitled to, no distribution keys, no word of a Rücklage kept apart — nothing here I could check a Verwalter's settlement against, so it sits barely above bare bookkeeping. 1 2
The Accountant
The only settlement engine on record is the tenant-facing Nebenkostenabrechnung with a Schnellstart-Assistent — a tenancy product, not the community's Jahresabrechnung. There is no Wirtschaftsplan, no distribution keys (MEA, units, consumption), no Abrechnungsspitze, no HeizkostenV apportionment for the WEG, and the Rücklage as segregated trust money is not a concept anywhere in the evidence; the finance features are rent-receipt checks and an income/expense overview, i.e. general bookkeeping. 1 2
The Portfolio Manager
Landlord bookkeeping only — Mieteingangscheck, income/expense overview and a tenant-facing Nebenkostenabrechnung; no Wirtschaftsplan, no WEG Jahresabrechnung, no distribution keys, no Rücklage separation. That is the anchor-0 description; I nudge to 1 only because a settlement document of some kind exists. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
This is a single-landlord finance tracker: Einnahmen-/Kostenübersicht, Mieteingangscheck and a tenant-facing Nebenkostenabrechnung with an auto-fill assistant — no Wirtschaftsplan, no WEG-Jahresabrechnung, no distribution keys for a community, and the Rücklage concept does not exist here. The provenance note itself says it was included to be judged against WEG duties it does not target, and the evidence confirms that. 1 2
The Skeptic
The ledger here is a private landlord's: an 'Einnahmen- und Kostenübersicht', a rent-receipt check, and a tenant-facing Nebenkostenabrechnung with an auto-fill wizard — no Wirtschaftsplan, no Jahresabrechnung in any WEG form, no MEA- or unit-based distribution keys, and the word Rücklage never appears in the record. 1 2
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
Both pages are entirely silent on convening, agenda, minutes, voting and any Beschluss-Sammlung, so the meeting is supported nowhere and rubric level 0 applies. 1 2
The Advisory Board Member
Neither captured page mentions convening a meeting, an agenda, attendance, proxies, votes or a Beschluss-Sammlung — not even templates. For the assembly that means invitations, minutes and the resolution register all stay outside the system, which is the zero anchor. 1 2
The Accountant
Not a word about convening, notice periods, agendas, proxies, voting or a Beschluss-Sammlung in either captured page — the stated scope is finances, documents, listings and portfolio insights. That is rubric level 0 by pure absence. 1 2
The Portfolio Manager
The entire the evidence is silent on meetings, invitations, voting, proxies or a Beschluss-Sammlung. Under rubric level 0, that absence is the score. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
The full feature enumeration across both registry entries — listings, insights, finance, documents, pricing — contains nothing on meetings, invitations, voting or a Beschluss-Sammlung. Score 0: meeting support is simply not part of this product. 1 2
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
No owner portal, per-owner scoping or record-inspection route appears anywhere; the only tenant-facing feature is free ImmoScout24 listings for a landlord's vacancies, which is not a WEG owner's disclosure channel. Every request would remain email or post. 1 2
The Advisory Board Member
The portal serves the landlord alone — his documents under 'Meine Immos', his rent receipts, his listings on ImmoScout24. There is no owner login, no per-owner scoping, no tenant view and no defect form, so an owner would still request every record by email or post. 1 2
The Accountant
The portal is the landlord's own cockpit ('Objekt in Meine Immos hinterlegen'); there is no per-owner scoping for a community, no owner/tenant visibility separation, no defect form and no mechanism for a WEG owner to see the records. For this criterion the product offers no portal at all. 1 2
The Portfolio Manager
The only self-service is the landlord's own 'Meine Immos' login; there is no owner or tenant portal, no per-owner scoping and no defect or request form. Nothing an Eigentümer could use to exercise their disclosure rights. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
The only tenant-facing capability evidenced is exposure via ImmoScout24 listings with 'unbegrenzte Mieteranfragen'; there is no portal login, no per-unit scoping, no statements, no defect form. Tenants here are prospects, not self-service users, and WEG owners are outside the product's model entirely. 1 2
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
No defect intake, no recurring maintenance schedule, no contractor assignment on either page; rubric level 0 governs the silence. 1 2
The Advisory Board Member
Defect intake, recurring maintenance schedules, statutory inspections and contractor assignment are absent from the evidence entirely. The building side of the administrator's job is simply not addressed, which is the zero anchor. 1 2
The Accountant
No defect intake, no recurring maintenance calendar, no statutory inspection tracking and no contractor assignment anywhere on the evidence; the closest thing is 'Vorlagen für alle Vermieteranliegen'. rubric level 0 by absence — nothing here builds an operating record for a building. 1 2
The Portfolio Manager
Not a single fact on defect intake, contractor work orders, recurring maintenance or statutory inspections with proof. For a portfolio of my size that is disqualifying and scores 0 by the anchor. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
Nothing in the registry mentions defect intake, maintenance schedules, inspections or contractors — the closest items are a 'Dokumente-Assistenz mit Analyse und Empfehlungen' and templates, which are document aids, not building management. Defects evidently arrive outside the system. 1 2
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
"Dokumente sicher ablegen" with analysis assistance and templates is central storage plus upload, but there is no versioning, no retention policy and no defined handover export — precisely rubric level 3. 1 2
The Advisory Board Member
There is a genuine Dokumentenablage per object with OCR upload, document analysis and templates — central storage with upload, in other words. But versioning, retention periods and any defined handover export are silent in the evidence, so when an appointment ends it is still copying folders. 1 2
The Accountant
There is genuine central storage — 'Alle Dokumente sicher ablegen' with OCR upload and a document assistant — which clears rubric level 3's bar. But nothing evidences versioning, retention periods or a defined handover export; at a Verwalterwechsel this is a folder copy with nice OCR. 1 2
The Portfolio Manager
'Dokumentenablage' with templates and a document-assistant gives central storage, but no versioning, no retention policy and no defined handover export are evidenced. That is the anchor-3 description verbatim. 2
The Data Protection Officer
There is a 'Dokumentenablage' with upload, templates and a document-analysis assistant — that is central storage per portfolio, and nothing more: no versioning, no retention policy, no export or handover path. From my seat the absence of any retention statement and any access log over that archive is the decisive gap. 1 2
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 vendor is Scout24 SE, Munich — so not a non-EU vendor — but the record shows no sovereignty attributes at all: hosting unstated, subprocessors unnamed, no certification published. rubric level 3's absent-subprocessor situation fits, and for community records that silence is itself a shortcoming. 1 2
The Advisory Board Member
The provenance names Scout24 SE of Munich, so at least the contracting entity is EU — but the sovereignty record is empty: hosting location unstated, no subprocessor list, no certification named on either captured page. I cannot tell the neighbours where the community's data would actually sit, which is the EU-entity-but-absent-subprocessors anchor. 1 2
The Accountant
The vendor is Scout24 SE of Munich, so the contracting entity is European, but the pipeline records no sovereignty attributes: hosting location unstated, no subprocessor list, no certification — rubric level 3's 'subprocessor list is absent' branch. Where the community's books would physically live is simply not evidenced. 1
The Portfolio Manager
The vendor is Scout24 SE of Munich per the provenance, but the pipeline records no sovereignty attributes: hosting is unstated and no subprocessor list appears. rubric level 3 fits — an absent subprocessor list — and I take no comfort from a German brand name alone. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
The evidence records no sovereignty attributes at all: hosting location unstated, subprocessor list absent, and the 'Dokumenten-Upload mit automatischer Texterkennung' sends names, addresses and bank details into an OCR service nobody has named or located. Scout24 SE being Munich-based is the only mitigating fact, and it is not evidenced in the registry — hence below the anchor that at least names the chain. 1 2
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
9,90 €/month base including one unit, 0,99 €/month per additional unit, monthly billing, cancellable anytime and all features in a single plan make the annual figure computable, lifting it above rubric level 5's unpriced-bundle case. It falls short of 8 because VAT treatment and any setup or migration cost are nowhere stated. 1 2
The Advisory Board Member
The annual bill is derivable from public pages: 9,90 € a month including one unit, 0,99 € for each additional, monthly billing, anytime cancellation and all functions in a single bundle with a self-ending 30-day trial and no card or bank data required. Only the VAT treatment and any setup/migration terms go unstated, which keeps it short of the top anchors. 1 2
The Accountant
Unusually clean: 9,90 €/Monat incl. one unit plus 0,99 € per additional unit, monthly billing, anytime cancellable, and 'alle Funktionen' in one flat offer — so the annual invoice for n units is arithmetically derivable with no unpriced module bundles. It falls short of rubric level 8 because VAT treatment and any setup or export fee are not stated anywhere. 1 2
The Portfolio Manager
Public, computable per-unit maths: 9,90€/month base incl. one unit plus 0,99€ per additional Wohneinheit, monthly billing, anytime cancellation, everything in one bundle with no hidden modules. It stops short of rubric level 8 because VAT treatment is not stated and setup/migration costs are simply unmentioned rather than declared. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
The annual invoice is publicly computable: 9,90€/month base including one unit plus 0,99€ per additional unit, monthly billing, 30-day trial ending automatically, cancellable anytime, no card required — effectively one priced bundle with all features. VAT treatment is the one stated gap, and no export/exit fee appears, so it falls just short of the 8 anchor. 1 2
The Skeptic
The annual bill is genuinely computable from public pages — 9,90€/month base incl. one unit plus 0,99€ per additional Wohneinheit, monthly billing, anytime-cancellable, trial without card or bank data — docked to 7 because VAT treatment and any tier/module boundary beyond 'alle Funktionen' are not stated. 1 2
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 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 | — | uncited 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 15 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 compliance on the pages we read (vermietet.de, vermietet.de/preise). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- 1 product 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
Sources (2)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage vermietet.de Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing vermietet.de Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →