Whistleblowing Portals
Ethical Advocate
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Ethical Advocate, LLC · ethicaladvocate.com
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.
Ethical Advocate at a glance
- Vendor
- Ethical Advocate, LLC
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Ethical Advocate 2/5, the mean of 6 judges. Ethical Advocate, LLC is a hosted software-as-a-service whistleblowing hotline whose strongest dimension is intake: reporting channels scores run 6 to 7, crediting a website and a 24/7 call center presented as anonymous and confidential, translation into 200 languages, an ADA Title II-compliant platform version and a follow-up portal. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 3 Nov 2026; evaluated by the panel 4 Nov 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Ethical Advocate, LLC is a hosted software-as-a-service whistleblowing hotline whose strongest dimension is intake: reporting channels scores run 6 to 7, crediting a website and a 24/7 call center presented as anonymous and confidential, translation into 200 languages, an ADA Title II-compliant platform version and a follow-up portal. Case management spans 4 to 6, the widest range the bench produced — judges credited one central repository merging hotline and web reports, reviewer-level access control and a complete audit trail, while finding no public information on statutory deadline tracking, conflict-of-interest exclusion or retention periods. Compliance alignment scores cluster at 2: the pages frame the product around US obligations — Sarbanes-Oxley, the Federal Acquisition Regulation and a federal contractor anonymous-hotline statute — and we found no public information on the EU whistleblowing directive or any national transposition. Sovereignty scores 0, with the contracting entity's jurisdiction, hosting, subprocessors and any data processing agreement all unknown. Security assurance runs 3 to 4, with encryption stated but the "high-level security certification" never named. The vendor publishes no prices.
Speaks for it
- Web and call-center intake presented as anonymous and confidential, with translation into 200 languages through the call center.
- Hotline and web reports integrate into one central repository with status, assignee and reviewer-level access control.
- Submitted information, communications, private notes and files are stated to be encrypted and retained under a complete audit trail.
- A follow-up-or-submit portal and an ADA Title II-compliant platform version are both available.
- Hotline and encrypted data review are described as available 24/7/365.
Held against it
- Compliance framing is entirely US — Sarbanes-Oxley, the Federal Acquisition Regulation and a federal contractor hotline statute — and we found no public information on the EU whistleblowing directive or any national transposition.
- Sovereignty scored 0: the contracting entity's jurisdiction, data residency, hosting, subprocessors and any data processing agreement are all unknown.
- The 'high-level security certification' is stated without a named standard, and we found no public information on ISO 27001, penetration testing or IP and metadata handling.
- We found no public information on statutory deadline tracking, conflict-of-interest exclusion or per-case retention and deletion periods.
- Multi-entity scale scored 2 to 3, with no public information on separate channels per legal entity, delegated administration or group-level oversight.
Best for
- You need around-the-clock anonymous intake — a 24/7 call center with translation into 200 languages plus a web channel.
- Your obligations run through US law — Sarbanes-Oxley, the Federal Acquisition Regulation or the federal contractor anonymous-hotline statute.
- You want hotline and web reports unified in one encrypted, audited repository with reviewer-level access control.
- You are a single legal entity — for example a small or mid-sized company — rather than a multi-entity group.
Avoid if
- Your duties arise from EU Directive 2019/1937 or a national transposition such as the German HinSchG.
- You must verify hosting location, the contracting entity's jurisdiction or a data processing agreement before signing.
- You need statutory acknowledgement and feedback deadlines tracked and escalated inside the system.
- You are a corporate group needing separate channels per legal entity and delegated administration.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Reporting channels & reporter experience | 3.5 of 5 |
| Case management & deadline discipline | 2.5 of 5 |
| Legal compliance alignment | 1 of 5 |
| Security & anonymity assurance | 2 of 5 |
| Group & multi-entity capability | 1.5 of 5 |
Reporting channels & reporter experience
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The intake side: how a reporter actually submits — web form, anonymous dialogue, phone or voice message, languages, accessibility — and whether anonymity survives first contact.
0 — Not a reporting channel; a general contact or survey form with no anonymous route and no way to reach the reporter afterwards.
3 — A web form that accepts anonymous reports, with a case number or access code the reporter can use to check the report later.
5 — Anonymous two-way dialogue through a protected mailbox or access code, the reporting page in several languages, and use on mobile devices without an app or account.
8 — Several channels (web, voice message or phone hotline, in-person meeting requests, QR or intranet entry points), broad language coverage with translation of messages, accessibility addressed, and voice distortion or another anonymity measure for spoken reports.
10 — Intake engineered around the frightened reporter: every channel usable anonymously, dozens of languages, WCAG conformance stated, no app or account required, and the vendor documents how the reporter's identity is kept out of the channel itself.
The Compliance Officer
Intake runs through a website and a 24/7 call center, both presented as anonymous and confidential, with a follow-up portal for reporters to return to their case, translation into 200 languages through the call center, and an ADA Title II-compliant version of the platform. We found no public information on voice distortion or another anonymity measure for spoken reports, on the languages of the web reporting page itself, or on mobile use without an app, so this sits above a basic anonymous form but short of full multi-channel intake. 1 2 3
The Reporter's Advocate
A frightened worker gets a website plus a call center running 24/7/365 with translation into 200 languages, and an ADA Title II-compliant version — a night-shift phone that works. There is a 'Follow Up or Submit a Report' portal and a pointer to a dedicated reporter-anonymity page, though the captured pages do not show how follow-up dialogue works or that use is free of an app or account. No voice distortion or other anonymity measure for spoken reports is documented, which keeps this short of the strongest intake. 1 2 3
The SME Operator
Reports come in through both a website and a 24/7 call center, anonymous and managed by a third party, with a follow-up portal so a reporter can check back after filing, and translation into 200 languages through the call center plus an ADA Title II-compliant version of the platform. We found no public information on mobile use without an app or account, or on voice distortion or another anonymity measure for spoken reports. 1 2 3 4
The Group Counsel
Two intake channels are documented — a website and a 24/7 call-center hotline — with translation into 200 languages through the call center and an ADA Title II-compliant version released. A follow-up portal lets a reporter return to a case, and a dedicated reporter-anonymity protections page is referenced by link. What remains undocumented is any anonymity measure for spoken reports such as voice distortion, mobile use without an app or account, and the content of the anonymity protections themselves, which holds this below the top of the scale. 1 2 3
The Security Auditor
Intake runs through a website and a 24/7 call center with translation into 200 languages, a follow-up portal lets the reporter return to a submitted case, and an ADA Title II-compliant version addresses accessibility. It stays below the top band because the captured pages give no anonymity measure for spoken reports and no statement of how reporter identity is kept out of the channel itself — a dedicated reporter-anonymity page exists but its contents were not captured. 1 2 3
The Skeptic
Web and call-center intake are both described as anonymous and confidential, with a follow-up-or-submit portal, translation into 200 languages through the call center, and an ADA Title II-compliant version of the platform. A dedicated reporter-anonymity protections page is referenced but its content is not shown, and no named anonymity measure for spoken reports, such as voice distortion, is documented — so this sits just below the strongest multi-channel level. 1 2 3
Case management & deadline discipline
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The case worker's side: triage, the statutory deadlines (7-day acknowledgement, 3-month feedback), roles for case handlers, documentation of each case, and retention and deletion.
0 — No case handling; reports are forwarded by email and handled outside the product.
3 — Reports collected in a case list with status, notes and messages to the reporter.
5 — Reminders or deadline tracking for the 7-day acknowledgement and 3-month feedback, case handlers assigned with roles and permissions, and notes, documents and the full dialogue kept per case.
8 — Statutory deadlines tracked automatically with escalation, conflict-of-interest handling that excludes implicated case handlers, a tamper-evident case history, retention and deletion periods applied per case, and caseload statistics or management reports.
10 — A case system an external investigator can rely on: configurable investigation workflows, a complete audit trail of every access and change, deletion automated to the statutory retention periods with evidence, and statistics prepared for the annual report or the regulator.
The Compliance Officer
The case management pages show a genuine case system: hotline and web reports land in one central repository, each case tracked by status and assignee, with private notes and the full investigator-reporter communication retained, encryption and a complete audit trail of activity, access governed by reviewer access levels, and Excel export plus analytics for statistics. What decides the score is that we found no public information on deadline tracking for acknowledgement and feedback, escalation, conflict-of-interest exclusion of implicated handlers, or retention and deletion periods per case — the clocks that land on my desk are not shown as the system's job. 4 1
The Reporter's Advocate
Hotline and web reports land in a central repository with status tracking, assignees, access levels per reviewer, retained communications and private notes under a complete audit trail, with Excel and statistical outputs for management. We found no public information on deadline tracking of any kind or on retention and deletion periods; a page titled 'Ethics Case Record Keeping' was captured without its body text. 1 4 5
The SME Operator
Case management integrates hotline and web reports into one central repository with status, assignee, reviewer-level access control, private notes, files and the investigator-reporter dialogue retained under a complete audit trail, plus statistics and Excel export. But the captured pages say nothing about the statutory acknowledgement and feedback deadlines or any reminder and escalation for them, and retention is described as keeping everything rather than deleting after set periods — the legal duty itself is not handled here. 1 4
The Group Counsel
Reports are tracked from inception through investigation to resolution, with reviewers assigned, access controlled by reviewer access level, and all communications, private notes and files encrypted and retained under a complete audit trail; Excel export and an analytics integration provide caseload statistics. We found no public information on tracking of the 7-day acknowledgement or 3-month feedback deadlines, conflict-of-interest exclusion of implicated handlers, or per-case retention and deletion periods — the deadline discipline a twelve-country deployment stands or falls on. 4 5 1
The Security Auditor
The case-management pages show hotline and web reports merged into one central repository, reviewer access levels, per-case assignment and status tracking, encrypted retention of communications, private notes and files with a complete audit trail, and Excel and statistical analysis. We found no public information on deadline reminders for acknowledgement or feedback, on conflict-of-interest handling, or on retention and deletion periods per case. 4 1 5
The Skeptic
Case management integrates hotline and web reports into one central repository with status, assignee, private notes, investigator-reporter dialogue and a complete audit trail, plus statistical analysis and Excel export. We found no public information on statutory deadline tracking, conflict-of-interest exclusion of implicated handlers, or retention and deletion periods — the discipline half of this picture is undocumented. 1 4
Legal compliance alignment
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How specifically the product implements EU Directive 2019/1937 and its national transpositions (HinSchG et al.): which statutory duties it maps to features, which countries it names, and how it keeps up when the law changes.
0 — Generic feedback or survey software with no reference to the whistleblowing obligations.
3 — The directive or HinSchG named on the vendor's pages, with the product presented as a way to meet the duty to provide an internal reporting channel.
5 — The statutory duties described as product features for at least one named national law — confidentiality, the acknowledgement and feedback deadlines, documentation of reports, and deletion after the retention period.
8 — Several national transpositions supported with their differing details, templates or process guidance (reporting policy, employee information) provided, and legal review by named counsel or a documented process.
10 — The product is a legal instrument: per-country rule sets kept current with a stated update process, documented legal review, and guidance for edge cases (group-wide channels, external ombudsman set-ups, works council involvement under the BetrVG) published.
The Compliance Officer
The pages name US obligations — Sarbanes-Oxley, the Federal Acquisition Regulation, and the federal contractor anonymous-hotline statute — and present the service as meeting them. We found no public information on the EU whistleblowing directive or any national transposition such as the HinSchG, so none of the European statutory duties are mapped to product features; the guidance on country-culture anonymity expectations is customisation language, not legal rule sets. 1 3
The Reporter's Advocate
The pages name Sarbanes-Oxley, the Federal Acquisition Regulation and a US federal statute requiring contractors to offer an anonymous hotline — this is a US compliance tool. We found no public information on the EU whistleblowing directive or any national transposition of it, so no European statutory duty is mapped to a feature. 1 3
The SME Operator
The regulatory obligations named on the pages are American — Sarbanes-Oxley, the Federal Acquisition Regulation and the federal contractor anonymous-hotline statute — and the training content covers the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. We found no reference to EU Directive 2019/1937 or any national transposition, no statutory-deadline features, and no policy templates or documented legal review, so the alignment shown does not match the law that obligates me. 1 2 3
The Group Counsel
The product is anchored to US obligations — Sarbanes-Oxley, the Federal Acquisition Regulation, FCPA training and the federal contractor anonymous-hotline statute — and is presented as the means to satisfy those reporting duties. We found no public information referencing the EU whistleblowing directive or any national transposition such as the HinSchG, so the statutory duties I must implement per subsidiary are unmapped in these pages. 1 3
The Security Auditor
The pages anchor the product to US obligations — Sarbanes-Oxley, the Federal Acquisition Regulation, and a federal statute requiring anonymous contractor hotlines — and present it as the way to meet those internal reporting duties. We found no public information naming the EU whistleblowing directive or any national transposition, and no country-specific rule sets or templates. 1 3
The Skeptic
The captured pages frame the product around US law — Sarbanes-Oxley, the Federal Acquisition Regulation, a federal-contractor anonymous-hotline statute, and FCPA training content. We found no public information on EU Directive 2019/1937, any national transposition, templates, or named counsel with a legal-update process. The statutory mapping is real but entirely American. 1 3
Security & anonymity assurance
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether the confidentiality promise is engineered and evidenced: encryption, IP and metadata handling, penetration tests, certifications of the vendor and its hosting.
0 — Reports are not protected as confidential data; the product makes no security or confidentiality commitment for them.
3 — Encrypted transmission and storage of reports stated, and a commitment that reports are confidential.
5 — Encryption of report content described with some technical detail (end-to-end or at rest with key handling), a statement that IP addresses or metadata are not logged, and an ISO 27001 certificate for the vendor or its named hosting provider.
8 — A certified ISMS covering the product itself, regular third-party penetration tests stated, the encryption architecture documented, metadata minimisation explained, and a security contact or disclosure policy published.
10 — Assurance a hostile auditor accepts: current certificates with their scope published, recurring pentest summaries public, the cryptographic architecture documented, and anonymity analysed against the operator itself — the vendor explains why it cannot unmask a reporter.
The Compliance Officer
Encryption of submitted reports, communications, private notes and files is stated, reports are treated as confidential, and the vendor describes a third-party security audit based on the credit card industry's standards that resulted in what it calls a high-level security certification, alongside a dedicated reporter-anonymity protections page. The certification itself is not named, and we found no public information on ISO 27001 certification, IP address or metadata handling, the encryption architecture, or the cadence of penetration tests. 6 4 2
The Reporter's Advocate
Encryption of reports, communications, notes and files with a complete audit trail is stated, alongside a third-party audit built on the credit card industry's standards and a 'high-level security certification' whose specific name is not given. We found no public information on IP or metadata logging, and nothing explaining why the vendor could not unmask a reporter — the anonymity promise rests on an unopened page. 4 6
The SME Operator
Encryption of reports, exchanged communications, private notes and files with a complete audit trail is stated, and a third-party audit based on the credit card industry's standards is said to have resulted in a 'high-level security certification'. No certificate is named, and we found no public information on ISO 27001, penetration tests, the encryption architecture or how IP addresses and metadata are handled — nothing here I could hand an auditor. 4 6
The Group Counsel
Encryption of submitted reports, communications, private notes and files is stated, together with a complete audit trail and the commitment to confidential, anonymous reporting managed by an independent third party. The vendor reports a third-party audit based on credit-card-industry standards and receipt of a "high-level security certification," but no standard or scope is named, and we found no public information on penetration testing, IP or metadata handling, or an explanation of why the operator cannot unmask a reporter. 4 2 6
The Security Auditor
Encryption and confidential retention of submitted information, communications, notes and files are stated with a complete audit trail, and the vendor reports a third-party audit "based on the credit card industry's stringent standards" plus a "high-level security certification". That certification is never named, so its scope cannot be checked; we found no public information on encryption or key-handling detail, IP or metadata handling, named ISO 27001 coverage, penetration tests, or a security contact or disclosure policy. 4 6 2
The Skeptic
Encryption and retention of submitted information, communications, private notes and files with a complete audit trail is stated, and a third-party audit based on the credit card industry's standards is described. But the resulting "high-level security certification" carries no named standard or certificate — a certification claim without a certificate — and we found no public information on ISO 27001, penetration-test cadence, key handling, or IP and metadata logging. 4 6
Group & multi-entity capability
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-labelling.
0 — Built for a single organisation only; a group needs one separate contract and instance per company.
3 — Several reporting channels or companies managed under one account.
5 — Separate channels per legal entity with their own case handlers, a group-level overview, and branding per channel; access for an external ombudsperson or counsel possible.
8 — A multi-tenant group structure: per-entity channels, languages and branding, delegated administration per subsidiary, external ombudsman roles, and group reporting that respects entity boundaries.
10 — Group compliance as architecture: hundreds of entities managed centrally, per-country legal rules assigned per entity, white-label reporting pages, and access separation strong enough to satisfy each subsidiary's works council — all documented.
The Compliance Officer
Hotline and web reports are integrated into a single central repository under one account, cases can be tracked by geographic location and operational function, and the vendor describes customisation to organisational and country-culture needs while serving millions of users across public, private, non-profit, education and government sectors. We found no public information on separate channels per legal entity, per-entity case handlers, a group-level overview, per-channel branding, or external ombudsman access, so a corporate group cannot be assumed from scale alone. 4 1 2
The Reporter's Advocate
The pages speak of over 5.5 million users across all sectors, customization to organizational, government and country needs, and reports tagged by geographic location. We found no public information on separate channels per legal entity, group-level oversight, branding per channel or external ombudsman access, so only the vaguest group capability is shown. 1 2 4
The SME Operator
Hotline and web reports sit in one central repository with tracking by geographic location and operational function, and the service reports millions of users across companies, non-profits, education and government. We found no public information on separate channels per legal entity, delegated administration per subsidiary, group-level reporting, white-labelling or ombudsman access — fine for my single 60-employee company, but a group buyer cannot see what they would get. 1 2 4
The Group Counsel
Hotline and web reports are integrated into one central repository with reviewer-level access control and tracking by geographic location and operational function, and the vendor cites service to 5.5 million people across public, private, government and education sectors. We found no public information on separate channels per legal entity, delegated administration per subsidiary, external ombudsman access or group reporting that respects entity boundaries — exactly the structure I would need before rolling one system to 25 subsidiaries. 4 1 2
The Security Auditor
Hotline and web channels integrate into one central data repository under one account, with customizable systems for organizational, government and country needs, and the vendor reports millions of users across public, private, non-profit, education and government sectors. We found no public information on separate channels per legal entity, group-level oversight across entities, delegated administration, external ombudsman access or white-labelling. 4 1 2
The Skeptic
The pages claim millions of users across public, private, non-profit, education and government sectors, customization to organizational and country-culture needs, and tracking by geographic location and operational function. We found no public information on separate channels per legal entity, group-level oversight, branding per channel, delegated administration, or ombudsman access — user counts are not entity architecture. 1 2 4
European sovereignty
panel opinion
n/r
n/r
n/r
n/r
n/r
n/r
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where reports about people actually live and under whose law: contracting entity and parent company, hosting location, subprocessors (hosting, phone or voice provider, translation, email), and the data processing agreement. In this category the data is by definition the most sensitive a company holds. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; describe what is proven, and treat what is not stated as unknown rather than non-EU.
0 — Proven non-EU end to end: non-EU entity and non-EU hosting with no EU option, and no data processing agreement offered.
3 — A privacy policy and a data processing agreement exist; hosting location and subprocessors are not stated, or EU hosting is offered only on request or on top tiers.
5 — EU hosting stated as the default, a data processing agreement and a subprocessor list published; a parent company or a subprocessor may sit outside the EU.
8 — EU entity, EU hosting in named data centres, a subprocessor list with no non-EU processor touching report content, and the DPA and TOMs published.
10 — Jurisdictionally clean end to end: European ownership, EU-only hosting and subprocessors for report content and metadata, an on-premises or sovereign-cloud option, and the whole chain documented publicly.
The Compliance Officer not rated — no public information
We found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, hosting location, subprocessors, or a data processing agreement in the captured pages, including the main site and the security page; the collected sovereignty attributes are all unknown. Unknown is not non-European, but nothing published here proves a single dimension of the chain for this most sensitive data. 1 6
The Reporter's Advocate not rated — no public information
I found no public information on the vendor's jurisdiction, hosting location, subprocessors or a data processing agreement; the captured pages describe a hosted software-as-a-service without stating where the reports live or under whose law. Sovereignty dimensions are unknown to me, not established as non-European. 1 4
The SME Operator not rated — no public information
We found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, hosting location, subprocessors or a data processing agreement on the captured pages. With the most sensitive data a company holds at stake, nothing tells me where reports about my people would live or under whose law they would sit. 1 4 6
The Group Counsel not rated — no public information
We found no public information on hosting location, the contracting entity's jurisdiction, subprocessors or a data processing agreement in the captured pages; the only related fact is delivery as hosted software-as-a-service, with no data residency stated. Every sovereignty dimension is unknown from these pages, which is not the same as non-European — it is simply unproven. 4 6
The Security Auditor not rated — no public information
We found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, hosting location, subprocessors, or a data processing agreement; the captured pages describe the product only as hosted software-as-a-service without naming where report data resides. 4 1
The Skeptic not rated — no public information
We found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, hosting location, subprocessors, or a data processing agreement. The captured pages describe hosted software-as-a-service for United States and international clients but state nothing about where report data lives or whose law governs it, so no dimension of this criterion is proven either way. 1 3 4
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: tier prices, billing period, employee bands, add-ons (phone intake, languages, entities) and setup fees.
0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.
3 — A public "from" price or one priced tier; the other tiers, employee bands or add-ons are not public.
5 — Public per-tier prices with the billing period (monthly or annual) stated and the main inclusions or employee band of each tier listed.
8 — Every tier priced publicly with employee-band boundaries, entity rules, add-ons (phone intake, languages, extra entities) and setup fees stated, and VAT treatment given; 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 not rated — no public information
We found no public information on pricing in the captured pages: no tier prices, billing period, employee bands, add-ons such as phone intake or extra languages, or setup fees appear on the main site or the solutions pages. An obligated company cannot compute even a rough invoice from what is published here. 1 4
The Reporter's Advocate not rated — no public information
I found no public information on prices, tiers, billing periods, employee bands or setup fees on any captured page, so an obligated company cannot compute an invoice from what is published here. 1 4
The SME Operator not rated — no public information
We found no public prices, tiers, employee bands, billing periods, add-ons or setup fees on the captured pages — not one figure. I cannot judge whether the year-end review would question the invoice, because any price would have to come out of a sales conversation. 1 2 3 4
The Group Counsel not rated — no public information
We found no public pricing information in the captured pages — no tier prices, billing period, employee bands, add-ons or setup fees appear in any captured fact. For an obligated company the invoice is therefore a sales conversation, not something computable from public pages. 1 4
The Security Auditor not rated — no public information
We found no public information on tier prices, billing period, employee bands, add-ons or setup fees; every page we read describes the service without figures. 1 4
The Skeptic not rated — no public information
We found no public information on pricing — no tier prices, employee bands, billing period, add-ons or setup fees appear on any captured page. An obligated company cannot compute even a starting invoice from what is public; every number here is a sales conversation. 1 2 3 4 6
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 6 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hosting location | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Hosting options | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Open source | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data processing agreement | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Transfer impact assessment | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Ethical Advocate
Is Ethical Advocate European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Ethical Advocate is based.
Where does Ethical Advocate store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026.
Does Ethical Advocate have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Ethical Advocate?
As of 4 Nov 2026, the panel rates preeco | hinweisgeberschutz (3.5/5), Ethicontrol (3/5) and LegalTegrity (3/5) highest among the other 39 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: Ethical Advocate alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 3 Nov 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 (ethicaladvocate.com, ethicaladvocate.com/anonymous-hotlines, ethicaladvocate.com/anonymous-employee-hotlines, ethicaladvocate.com/solutions/case-management, ethicaladvocate.com/ethics-hotline-reporting/ethics-case-record-keeping, ethicaladvocate.com/protecting-you/security and 1 more). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- 7 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 (7)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page ethicaladvocate.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 2 Reporting channels & reporter experience — found from sitemap www.ethicaladvocate.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 3 Reporting channels & reporter experience — found from sitemap www.ethicaladvocate.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 4 Case management & deadline discipline — found from sitemap www.ethicaladvocate.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 5 Case management & deadline discipline — found from sitemap www.ethicaladvocate.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 6 Security & anonymity assurance — found from sitemap www.ethicaladvocate.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 7 Security & anonymity assurance — found from sitemap www.ethicaladvocate.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →