Whistleblowing Portals
AllVoices
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by AllVoices, Inc. · www.allvoices.co
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Link to this page
Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds.
The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where
that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.
AllVoices at a glance
- Vendor
- AllVoices, Inc.
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates AllVoices 2/5, the mean of 6 judges. AllVoices, Inc. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
AllVoices, Inc. is an AI-native employee relations and whistleblowing platform whose bench scores split sharply between what a reporter touches and what a compliance buyer must evidence. Reporting channels are the strongest area at 7-8: intake runs by web, mobile, phone, email and QR code in 200+ languages, with no logins or PINs and two-way anonymous messaging that holds through resolution. Case management scores 4-6 for one dashboard, step-by-step workflows, configurable routing rules, SLAs and trend analytics. Compliance alignment and security assurance sit at 3: encryption, MFA, SSO and automatic PII stripping before AI processing are asserted, while we found no public information on certifications, penetration tests, statutory deadline clocks, national transpositions or IP and metadata logging. Sovereignty scores run 0-1, with hosting on AWS and no public information on hosting region, data residency, a data processing agreement or a subprocessor list. The genuine split is multi-entity scale at 1-4: the SME judge can live with that ambiguity for a single company, while the group counsel reads the same pages as one company, one channel. No public prices appear.
Speaks for it
- Reporting channels score 7-8, spanning web, mobile, phone, email and QR-code intake in 200+ languages.
- Two-way anonymous messaging keeps the reporter anonymous through resolution, with no logins or PINs.
- Every channel's reports land in one dashboard with step-by-step workflows, configurable routing rules, SLAs and trend analytics — case management scores 4-6.
- Encryption at rest and in transit, MFA, SSO and automatic PII stripping before AI processing are stated in plain terms.
- The vendor states customer data is not used to train or improve any AI model.
Held against it
- Sovereignty scores run 0-1, with AWS hosting and no public information on hosting region, data residency, a data processing agreement or a subprocessor list.
- Compliance alignment sits at 3, with the EU Whistleblower Directive named only alongside SOX and Dodd-Frank and no public information on statutory deadlines, retention periods or national transpositions.
- Security assurance sits at 3, with no public information on ISO 27001 or equivalent certification, penetration tests, or IP and metadata logging.
- Case management scores 4-6, with no public information on statutory deadline clocks, conflict-of-interest exclusion, role separation or tamper-evident case history.
- Multi-entity scale scores span 1-4, with no public information on per-entity channels or separated case access per legal entity.
Best for
- You are a single company that needs broad, reporter-friendly intake first — web, mobile, phone, email and QR code in 200+ languages; reporting channels scored 7-8.
- You want employees to report anonymously without logins, PINs or forms that feel like a police report, with two-way follow-up that keeps them anonymous through resolution.
- You need one dashboard consolidating every intake channel, with configurable workflows, routing rules and SLAs; case management scored 4-6 with judges crediting the workflow depth.
Avoid if
- Your whistleblowing data must sit under European jurisdictional control — sovereignty scored 0-1, hosting is on AWS, and we found no public information on hosting region, a data processing agreement or a subprocessor list.
- You are a corporate group needing per-entity channels or separated case access per subsidiary — multi-entity scale scored 1-4, the widest spread on the table and the one criterion where the judges genuinely split.
- You expect the vendor to own statutory discipline — acknowledgment and feedback deadlines, retention periods, national transpositions — compliance alignment scored 3 and we found no public information on any of these as product features.
- You need independently auditable security evidence — certifications, penetration tests, an IP and metadata logging policy — before trusting the anonymity promise; security assurance scored 3 on vendor assertions.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Reporting channels & reporter experience | 4 of 5 |
| Case management & deadline discipline | 2.5 of 5 |
| Legal compliance alignment | 1.5 of 5 |
| Security & anonymity assurance | 1.5 of 5 |
| Group & multi-entity capability | 1 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 0.5 of 5 |
Reporting channels & reporter experience
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The intake side: how a reporter actually submits — web form, anonymous dialog, phone/voice, languages, accessibility — and whether anonymity survives first contact.
0 — A web form that is an email in disguise: no anonymous route, no way to reach the reporter afterwards.
3 — An anonymous form exists but the dialogue ends there — no secured mailbox for follow-up questions, few languages, desktop-only.
5 — Anonymous two-way dialog via a protected mailbox, a usable set of languages, mobile-friendly; voice or phone intake missing or an add-on.
8 — Multiple channels (web, voice message or hotline, QR entry points), broad language coverage with translation support, accessibility considered, and the anonymous dialog is first-class rather than bolted on.
10 — Intake engineered around the frightened reporter: every channel anonymous-capable, dozens of languages, WCAG-conscious, no app install or account required, and the vendor documents how the reporter's identity is kept out of the channel itself.
The Compliance Officer
Intake is genuinely multi-channel — web, mobile, phone with international lines, email and QR codes, in 200+ languages, anonymous or named, no logins or PINs — and anonymity holds through two-way follow-up messaging, which is what a frightened reporter needs. I stop short of the top band because we found no public information on accessibility or on how the reporter's identity is kept out of the channel itself. 1 2 3 5
The Reporter's Advocate
This is the part they got right for the frightened reporter: web, phone with international lines, email and QR-code entry in 200+ languages, anonymous or named, with two-way follow-up the reporter can stay anonymous through — and no logins, PINs or forms that read like a police report. I found no public information on accessibility, and the pages assert the reporter is never exposed without documenting how identity is kept out of the channel itself. 1 2 3 5
The SME Operator
Intake looks genuinely built for the frightened employee: web, mobile, phone, email and QR code, 200+ languages, anonymous or named, no logins or PINs, and two-way anonymous messaging that holds all the way to resolution. I found no public information on accessibility or on how the reporter's identity is technically kept out of the phone and web channels, which is what keeps this off the top rung. 1 2 3
The Group Counsel
Intake is broad and reporter-friendly: web, mobile, phone hotline with international lines, email and QR entry, 200+ languages, no logins or PINs required, and anonymous two-way messaging that survives through resolution. I found no public information on accessibility standards or on how the reporter's identity is kept out of the channel's own metadata, which is what separates this from the top of the scale. 1 2 3 5
The Security Auditor
Intake genuinely spans web, mobile, phone, email and QR code in 200-plus languages, with two-way anonymous messaging through resolution and no logins or PINs required — the anonymous dialog looks first-class, not bolted on. I found no public information on accessibility or on the technical mechanism that keeps reporter identity out of each channel, which is exactly what I want evidenced before calling intake engineered rather than asserted. 1 2 3 5
The Skeptic
The channel set is real and named — web, mobile, phone, email, QR codes and an anonymous hotline with no logins or PINs — and two-way anonymous messaging runs through resolution in 200+ languages, which reads as first-class rather than bolted on. What keeps it from the top: the pages say nothing about accessibility standards and never explain how the reporter's identity stays out of the channel itself; anonymity is asserted, not architected in public view. 1 2 3 5
Case management & deadline discipline
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The case worker's side: triage, statutory deadlines (7-day acknowledgment, 3-month feedback), role separation, audit-proof documentation.
0 — Reports land in an inbox; deadlines, roles and history live in a spreadsheet next door.
3 — A case list with status fields, but deadlines are manual, permissions are all-or-nothing, and the record of who did what is thin.
5 — Deadline tracking with reminders for the statutory clocks, case notes and attachments, basic role separation between case handlers; reporting on the caseload is limited.
8 — Automated statutory clocks, conflict-of-interest handling (excluding implicated case handlers), complete tamper-evident case history, retention and deletion rules applied per case, and management reporting.
10 — A case system an external investigator can rely on: enforced workflows, full audit trail, legally aware retention/deletion automation, evidence handling, and statistics that survive a regulator's questions.
The Compliance Officer
There is a real case dashboard with configurable routing rules, SLAs, step-by-step workflows and claimed audit-ready documentation, plus trend analytics. But the seventy-percent-faster boast is about speed, not the statutory clocks I answer for: we found no public information on automated acknowledgment or feedback deadlines, role separation, conflict-of-interest exclusion, tamper-evident case history, or retention and deletion rules. 4 5 6
The Reporter's Advocate
Configurable intake forms, routing rules, SLAs and step-by-step workflows all land in one dashboard, with audit-ready documentation and trend reporting on top. I found no public information connecting deadlines to statutory clocks, on conflict-of-interest handling, on role separation among case handlers, or on retention and deletion per case. 4 5 6
The SME Operator
One dashboard where every report lands, step-by-step workflows, configurable SLAs and routing rules, plus trend analytics — a real case system, not a spreadsheet next door. But I found no public information on automated statutory clocks like the 7-day acknowledgment and 3-month feedback, role separation, conflict-of-interest exclusion or a tamper-evident history, and those legal deadlines are exactly what I need the product to own instead of me. 4 5 6
The Group Counsel
Reports from every channel land in one dashboard with step-by-step workflows, configurable routing, SLAs and resolutions per case type, plus trend reporting — a real case system, not an inbox. But I found no public information on automated statutory clocks, conflict-of-interest exclusion of implicated handlers, or a tamper-evident history of who did what, and configurable SLAs are generic rather than the 7-day and 3-month discipline a directive rollout demands. 4 5 6
The Security Auditor
Step-by-step workflows, configurable SLAs and routing rules, and a single dashboard for every intake channel are real capabilities, and audit-ready documentation is claimed. I found no public information on statutory deadline clocks, conflict-of-interest exclusion of implicated handlers, tamper-evident case history, or per-case retention and deletion — the deadline-discipline core an external investigator would actually rely on. 4 5 6
The Skeptic
Step-by-step workflows, configurable routing rules, SLAs and resolutions, a single dashboard and organization-wide trend analytics are more than a bare status list. But statutory deadline clocks, role separation between handlers, retention rules and any tamper-evident history are undocumented, and 'audit-ready documentation' is an adjective with no audit trail shown behind it. 4 5 6
Legal compliance alignment
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How specifically the product implements EU Directive 2019/1937 and national transpositions (HinSchG et al.) — not whether the marketing mentions them.
0 — Generic feedback software wearing a whistleblowing label; no reference to the legal obligations it claims to satisfy.
3 — The directive is invoked in marketing but the mapping is vague; deadline rules, documentation duties and retention periods are the customer's problem.
5 — The statutory duties are implemented as product features — acknowledgment and feedback clocks, documentation, deletion after the retention period — for at least one national law, with guidance for the rest.
8 — Multiple national transpositions supported with their differing details, legal templates and process guidance maintained by named counsel or documented review, and updates when the law moves.
10 — The product is a legal instrument: per-country rule sets kept current, documented legal review, guidance for edge cases (group-wide channels, external ombudsman setups), and the vendor shows its homework in public.
The Compliance Officer
The EU Whistleblower Directive is invoked by name, alongside SOX and Dodd-Frank, as a reason to buy a channel — an invocation, not an implementation. The compliance pages claim documentation of all legally required information without naming a single deadline, retention period or national transposition, and we found no public information on German or other national rule sets or on legal review behind the claims. 3 6
The Reporter's Advocate
The EU Whistleblower Directive is named as a reason to have a channel, alongside SOX and Dodd-Frank, and the vendor claims legally required information is documented automatically. I found no public information on national transpositions, statutory acknowledgment or feedback deadlines, retention periods, or any legal review behind these claims — the mapping stays at marketing level. 3 6
The SME Operator
The EU Whistleblower Directive is invoked by name alongside SOX and Dodd-Frank, and the product claims to automatically document all information required by law — but the mapping stops at that sentence. I found no public information on national transpositions such as the German HinSchG, on deadline rules or retention periods as product features, or on any documented legal review, so the compliance homework stays with my side of the table. 3 6
The Group Counsel
The EU Whistleblower Directive is invoked alongside SOX and Dodd-Frank as a reason to have a channel, and the vendor promises to automatically document "all required information by law" without naming which law or which duty. I found no public information on national transpositions, per-country rule sets, legal templates or documented legal review — the mapping is left to the customer. 3 6
The Security Auditor
The EU Whistleblower Directive is invoked in the same breath as SOX and Dodd-Frank, backed only by a promise to automatically document 'all required information by law' — I found no mapping to acknowledgment or feedback deadlines, retention periods, or any national transposition, and no named counsel or documented legal review. The directive is marketing vocabulary here while the obligations stay the customer's problem. 3 6
The Skeptic
The EU Whistleblower Directive appears in one marketing sentence alongside SOX and Dodd-Frank, and 'all required information by law' names no law. I found no public information on national transpositions, statutory acknowledgment or feedback deadlines, retention periods, or any counsel maintaining the legal content — the legal mapping is the customer's problem. 3 6
Security & anonymity assurance
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether the confidentiality promise is engineered and evidenced: encryption, metadata handling, penetration tests, certifications.
0 — Security is a paragraph of adjectives; no certificates, no test reports, no statement on metadata.
3 — TLS and encryption at rest asserted, but nothing audited: no ISO 27001 or equivalent, no published pentest, silence on IP and metadata logging.
5 — A current ISO 27001 (or equivalent) certificate for vendor or hosting, end-to-end encryption of report content claimed with some technical detail, an explicit no-IP-logging statement.
8 — Certified ISMS covering the product, regular third-party penetration tests attested, documented end-to-end encryption architecture, metadata minimization explained, security contact and disclosure policy published.
10 — Assurance a hostile auditor accepts: current certificates with visible scope, recurring pentest summaries public, cryptographic architecture documented, anonymity analysed against the operator itself — the vendor can answer "how would you unmask a reporter?" with "we cannot, and here is why".
The Compliance Officer
Encryption at rest and in transit is asserted — with the minimum of server-level encryption — and MFA and SSO are available, while the AI pipeline strips personal information before model calls and trains nothing on customer data. Still, we found no public information on ISO 27001 or equivalent certification, penetration tests, or IP and metadata logging, so the anonymity promise rests on adjectives. 7 8
The Reporter's Advocate
Encryption at rest and in transit is asserted, accounts can add two-factor authentication and SSO, personal data is stripped before anything reaches an AI model, and customer data is not used to train models. I found no public information on certifications, penetration tests, or the IP and metadata logging question that decides whether a reporter could actually be unmasked. 7 8
The SME Operator
Encryption at rest and in transit, MFA and SSO, automatic PII stripping before any AI processing, and a commitment that customer data trains no models are stated in plain terms. I found no public information on an ISO 27001 or equivalent certificate, third-party penetration tests, or an IP and metadata logging policy, so the confidentiality promise rests on assertions I cannot audit — and a hostile auditor would not accept that either. 7 8
The Group Counsel
Encryption in transit and at rest is asserted "with the minimum of server-level encryption", MFA and SSO are available, and there are welcome statements that customer data trains no AI model and that PII is stripped before reaching it. But I found no public information on certifications, penetration tests, or IP and metadata logging for reports, so the confidentiality promise is asserted rather than evidenced. 7 8
The Security Auditor
Encryption in transit and at rest is asserted — the vendor's own wording is 'the minimum of server-level encryption' — alongside MFA, SSO and PII stripping before AI processing, and that is everything that is public. I found no ISO 27001 or equivalent certificate, no penetration test report, no security contact or disclosure policy, and no statement on IP or metadata logging: adjective security wrapped around the anonymity promise. 7 8
The Skeptic
Encryption at rest and in transit, MFA and SSO, and PII stripping before AI processing are asserted — in the vendor's own words, 'the minimum of server-level encryption'. No ISO 27001 or equivalent certificate, no penetration test, no security disclosure policy, and silence on IP and metadata logging, which is exactly where an anonymity promise lives or dies. 7 8
Group & multi-entity capability
panel disagrees
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether one contract can serve a corporate group: separate channels per legal entity, central oversight, ombudsman access, white-labeling.
0 — One company, one channel; a group buys and administers N separate instances.
3 — Multiple channels under one account, but no separation of case access per entity and no consolidated view.
5 — Per-entity channels with separated case handlers and a group-level overview; branding per entity is basic; external counsel access possible.
8 — Real multi-tenant group structure: per-entity channels, languages and branding, delegated administration, external ombudsman roles, group reporting that respects entity boundaries.
10 — Group compliance as architecture: hundreds of entities manageable centrally, per-country legal rule assignment per entity, white-label reporting pages, and access separation strong enough to satisfy each subsidiary's works council.
The Compliance Officer
The only group-flavored material is international phone lines and 200+ languages pitched at global entities; on per-entity channels, separated case handlers, a consolidated group view, delegated administration or ombudsman access, we found no public information. I score this as effectively a single-company product until the vendor shows otherwise. 3 8
The Reporter's Advocate
The only group signal is a single line about international lines and 200+ languages for global entities. I found no public information on separate channels per legal entity, separated case access per subsidiary, a consolidated group view, delegated administration, or ombudsman access. 3 4
The SME Operator
There is a single consolidated dashboard, routing rules, customizations, and international lines with 200+ languages pitched at global entities. I found no public information on separate channels or separated case access per legal entity, delegated administration, or ombudsman access — as a single 60-employee company I can live with that ambiguity, but a corporate group cannot. 3 5 6
The Group Counsel
The only group-facing signal is international phone lines and 200+ languages "for global entities"; I found no public information on per-entity channels, separated case access per subsidiary, a consolidated group view, external ombudsman roles or delegated administration. For a 25-subsidiary rollout this reads as one company, one channel — I would be buying twenty-five contracts, which is exactly what I reject. 3
The Security Auditor
The only group-relevant statement I found is international phone lines and 200-plus languages for 'global entities'. I found no public information on per-entity channels, separated case access per legal entity, a consolidated group view, external ombudsman roles, or white-labeling, so a corporate group cannot judge fit from these pages. 3 8
The Skeptic
Multiple intake channels feed one dashboard with routing rules per case type, and a phrase about international lines 'for global entities' nods at groups. Beyond that I found no public information on per-entity channels, separated case access per legal entity, group-level oversight, delegated administration or ombudsman roles. 3 5 6
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where reports about people actually live and under whose law — entity, hosting, subprocessors, DPA. In this category the data is by definition the most sensitive a company holds.
0 — Non-EU entity, non-EU-default hosting, no public DPA or subprocessor list — for whistleblowing data.
3 — A DPA exists and an EU region is available on request or on top tiers; subprocessor exposure to US CLOUD Act reach is broad or undocumented.
5 — EU hosting is the default, DPA and subprocessor list published; the vendor or a critical subprocessor is still within non-European jurisdictional reach.
8 — EU entity, EU hosting with named data centers, published subprocessor list free of content-touching non-EU processors, DPA and TOMs public.
10 — Jurisdictionally clean end to end: European ownership, EU-only hosting and subprocessors for report content and metadata, on-premises or sovereign-cloud options, and the whole chain documented publicly.
The Compliance Officer
The vendor is AllVoices, Inc. hosting on AWS, and we found no public information on hosting region, data residency, a data processing agreement, or a subprocessor list. For the most sensitive data a company holds, that silence is nearly disqualifying. 1 7
The Reporter's Advocate
Hosting on AWS is the only infrastructure fact on the captured pages. I found no public information on the vendor's jurisdiction, data residency or region choice, a published data processing agreement, or any subprocessor list — for the most sensitive data a company holds, that is thin comfort. 7 8
The SME Operator
The only infrastructure fact on the captured pages is AWS hosting, with the pages not stating a region, and I found no public information on the vendor's jurisdiction, ownership, data residency, a DPA or a subprocessor list. For the most sensitive data a company holds, nothing I can see evidences a European chain, and that is a problem I cannot buy my way out of quietly. 7 8
The Group Counsel
Hosting is on AWS with no region stated, and I found no public information on the vendor's jurisdiction, data residency, a data processing agreement, or a subprocessor list. For the most sensitive data a group holds, nothing on the captured pages places any link of this chain under European control. 7
The Security Auditor
Hosting is on AWS with no region stated, and legal-entity jurisdiction, data residency and subprocessor exposure are all unconfirmed on the vendor's captured pages. I found no public DPA, subprocessor list or technical and organisational measures for a system holding the most sensitive data a company holds — nothing here lets a buyer place the reports under European jurisdictional control. 7 8
The Skeptic
The vendor is AllVoices, Inc., hosting is named as Amazon Web Services with no region stated, and the captured pages show no DPA, no subprocessor list and no EU data-residency commitment — for whistleblowing data, the most sensitive class there is. US jurisdictional reach over the host plus a complete absence of published chain documentation leaves this at the floor. 1 7
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether an obligated company can compute the real invoice — per entity, per employee band, per year — from public pages alone.
0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.
3 — An entry price exists, but the tiers most obligated companies need are unpriced, or the maths is obscured by employee bands, per-report fees or mandatory setup charges.
5 — Most tiers carry real numbers with billing period and VAT treatment stated, but at least one commonly needed capability — extra entities, extra languages, phone intake — hides in an unpriced add-on.
8 — Every tier priced publicly with employee-band boundaries, entity rules and setup fees stated; only genuine corporate-group contracts are custom.
10 — Complete price computability: every tier, band, add-on and renewal rule public, so the invoice for a 60-employee company and a 5-entity group is a two-minute exercise.
The Compliance Officer
We found no public information on pricing of any kind — no tiers, employee bands, billing terms or setup fees appear on the captured pages. No obligated company can compute even a starting invoice from what is published. 1
The Reporter's Advocate
I found no public information on pricing on any captured page — no tiers, figures, billing periods, or setup costs. An obligated company cannot begin to compute an invoice from what is published. 1 4 6
The SME Operator
I found no public information on prices, tiers, employee bands, billing periods or setup fees on any captured page. That means I cannot compute the year-one invoice for a 60-employee company from public pages — every figure waits on a sales conversation, which is precisely what my year-end review will not tolerate. 1 4
The Group Counsel
No public prices appear on any captured page — no tiers, employee bands, entity rules, setup fees or billing terms. An obligated company cannot compute any invoice from public information; every tier is a sales conversation. 1 2 4
The Security Auditor
I found no public pricing information on any captured page — no tiers, employee bands, billing periods, VAT treatment or setup fees. An obligated company cannot compute any part of its invoice without a sales conversation. 1 6
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 ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about AllVoices
Is AllVoices European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where AllVoices is based.
Where does AllVoices store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does AllVoices have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to AllVoices?
As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates preeco | hinweisgeberschutz (3.5/5), EQS Integrity Line (3.5/5) and Safecall (3.5/5) highest among the other 36 Whistleblowing Portals products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is preeco | hinweisgeberschutz (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: AllVoices alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 13 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Subprocessors. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- 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.
- 48 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
- 16 integrations 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
- 15 compliance 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
- 2 data 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 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
- 1 support 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
- 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 (8)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.allvoices.co Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Reporting channels & reporter experience — found from sitemap www.allvoices.co Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Reporting channels & reporter experience — found from sitemap www.allvoices.co Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Case management & deadline discipline — found from sitemap www.allvoices.co Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Case management & deadline discipline — found from sitemap www.allvoices.co Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Legal compliance alignment — found from sitemap www.allvoices.co Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Security & anonymity assurance — found from sitemap www.allvoices.co Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Security & anonymity assurance — found from sitemap www.allvoices.co Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →