whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Whistleblowing Portals

Ethicontrol

Provenance unknown Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: not determined

0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.

by Ethicontrol · ethicontrol.com

Report an error on this page Is this your product? →

Link to this page

Ethicontrol: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai Ethicontrol: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai (dark)

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.

Ethicontrol at a glance

Vendor
Ethicontrol
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
Starting price
“Whistleblowing platform from 89 EUR per month” (vendor’s words) source, captured 13 Oct 2026
Panel verdict
The AI panel rates Ethicontrol 3/5, the mean of 6 judges. Ethicontrol is strongest at intake: reporting channels scores cluster at 8, crediting a 24/7 toll-free line, a script-free portal reachable over Tor, anonymous two-way dialogue via secret code and Feedback Room, and metadata stripped from uploads; case management clusters at 7 for no-access-by-default roles and escalation bypassing implicated responders. how scores are made
As of
Vendor pages captured 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources

Ethicontrol alternatives, European ones first →

Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.

The Compliance Officer

Weighted verdict

Runs the internal reporting office of a 600-employee company and answers for every missed statutory clock. Optimizes for case discipline: automated acknowledgment and feedback deadlines, role separation, documentation that survives a regulator. Rejects inbox-with-a-form products that make the deadlines her problem.

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

Scored by The Compliance Officer

Panel median The Compliance Officer This judge’s scores over the panel median. Each label opens its reasoning below.
Scores per criterion, in stars out of 5
Criterion Panel median The Compliance Officer
Reporting channels & reporter experience 4 of 5 4 of 5
Case management & deadline discipline 3.5 of 5 3.5 of 5
Legal compliance alignment 3 of 5 3 of 5
Security & anonymity assurance 2 of 5 2 of 5
Group & multi-entity capability 3.5 of 5 3 of 5
European sovereignty 1.5 of 5 1 of 5
Pricing transparency 1.5 of 5 1.5 of 5

Reporting channels & reporter experience

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.

Report an error

The Compliance Officer

Intake is genuinely multi-channel — a 24/7 toll-free contact centre with native speakers, chatbots, live chat and browser calls alongside the web portal — and the anonymous dialog is first-class, with a secret code, a Feedback Room for follow-ups and a toll-free way back to the reporter. Language breadth is real (60+ intake languages with machine or manual translation) and the anonymity engineering is unusually documented: no tracking cookies or IP addresses on reporters, metadata cleaning of uploads, a script-free portal and Tor access. We found no public information on WCAG or other accessibility certification, which keeps this short of the top mark. 1 2 3 7 8

Report an error

Case management & deadline discipline

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.

Report an error

The Compliance Officer

The case side shows real discipline: role-based access defaulting to no access, a filterable audit log of every user action, escalation that bypasses implicated managers, automated response-time control with due dates and overdue reminders, and the 7-day acknowledgment and 3-month feedback clocks documented together with the 6-month extension. Management reporting is solid — time to respond, substantiation rate, investigation duration and a permission-aware group report across many dimensions. We found no public information on per-case retention and deletion automation, which is exactly what separates a strong case tool from one an external investigator can rely on. 1 2 4 7 8 10

Report an error

Legal compliance alignment

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.

Report an error

The Compliance Officer

The Directive duties are implemented as features rather than slogans — the 7-day and 3-month clocks with the 6-month extension, the 50/250-employee dates, subsidiaries anywhere regardless of ownership, jurisdiction-dependent form flows, and templates for whistleblowing policy and SOPs — and a published compliance matrix maps the platform against the EU Directive, ISO 37001/37002 and other regimes. However, we found no public information on named counsel, documented legal review, or how differing national transposition details are maintained when the law moves. 1 2 6 7

Report an error

Security & anonymity assurance

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".

Report an error

The Compliance Officer

The anonymity engineering is specific — an explicit statement of no tracking cookies, IP addresses or digital footprints on reporters, metadata cleaning of uploaded files, a script-free portal, Tor access, DMZ-separated intake, and a client-key database encryption option. But the certification claim is only "certified info-security and privacy management" with no named standard or scope, and we found no public information on penetration tests, security contacts or a disclosure policy; that will not survive a hostile auditor. 2 7 8 9

Report an error

Group & multi-entity capability

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.

Report an error

The Compliance Officer

Groups are taken seriously: multi-tenant data storage, multiple portals for groups not under a single brand, hierarchy down to subregions, units and divisions, access split by region, division and organisational level, and group reporting that respects user permissions. We found no public information on delegated administration per entity or dedicated ombudsman roles, and per-entity branding is limited to logo and hero image. 2 4 8 10

Report an error

European sovereignty

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.

Report an error

The Compliance Officer

EU storage in certified data centres is stated as the default, with on-premises and dedicated-server options available — but the same pages advertise servers in the US, UAE, Saudi Arabia, India and Tanzania. We found no public information on the vendor's legal jurisdiction or ownership, a data processing agreement, or any subprocessor list; for whistleblowing data that gap is what caps this rating. 1 4 7 8

Report an error

Pricing transparency

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.

Report an error

The Compliance Officer

Two entry prices are public — the global toll-free line and the ethics helpdesk each "from 89 EUR / month" — and plan boundaries are partially visible, with four web-form languages on Starter, ten on Advanced and unlimited on Pro. But we found no public prices for the plans themselves and no public information on employee-band boundaries, setup fees, billing period or VAT treatment, so an obligated company cannot compute a real invoice from public pages. 2

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

0 of 4 dimensions proven

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

Ownership Not determined — uncited Report an error
Data residency Not determined — uncited Report an error
Subprocessors Not determined — uncited Report an error

Questions about Ethicontrol

Is Ethicontrol European?

Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Ethicontrol is based.

Where does Ethicontrol store data?

Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.

Does Ethicontrol have a free plan?

Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.

What are the best alternatives to Ethicontrol?

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: Ethicontrol alternatives.

Where this could be wrong

What we left out

A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.

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

Sources (10)

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

  1. 1 Vendor page ethicontrol.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Reporting channels & reporter experience — found from sitemap ethicontrol.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Reporting channels & reporter experience — found from sitemap help.ethicontrol.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Case management & deadline discipline — found from sitemap ethicontrol.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Case management & deadline discipline — found from sitemap help.ethicontrol.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Legal compliance alignment — found from sitemap ethicontrol.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Legal compliance alignment — found from sitemap ethicontrol.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Security & anonymity assurance — found from sitemap ethicontrol.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Security & anonymity assurance — found from sitemap help.ethicontrol.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Group & multi-entity capability — found from sitemap help.ethicontrol.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →