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 SME Operator

Weighted verdict

Runs a 60-employee company that the law obligated, not convinced. Optimizes for compliance set up in an afternoon at a price the year-end review will not question, with the legal duties handled by the product. Rejects per-report fees, setup charges and anything that needs a compliance department to operate.

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

Scored by The SME Operator

Panel median The SME Operator 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 SME Operator
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 1.5 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 SME Operator

The intake side is genuinely multi-channel — a 24/7 toll-free line with native speakers, chatbots, browser-based calls, plus web, post and personal meeting — in more than 100 web-form languages with automatic and manual translation, and the anonymous dialogue via secret code and web Feedback Room is built in rather than bolted on. They also document keeping the reporter's identity out of the channel: no cookies or IP collection, metadata scrubbing from uploads, a script-free portal and Tor access. I found no public information on QR entry points or formal accessibility standards, which keeps this short of the top grade. 1 2 6 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 SME Operator

The statutory clocks — 7-day acknowledgement, 3-month feedback, 6-month extension — are implemented as product features with overdue reminders, role-based access that defaults to no access, an audit log of every action, and escalation that bypasses implicated managers, so the legal duties really are the product's job. Management reporting is extensive, from response times to substantiation rates to a permission-gated groups report. I found no public information on retention periods or automated deletion after them, which is exactly what a regulator would ask me about, so I stop one step below the top. 1 4 6 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 SME Operator

The directive's duties show up as features — acknowledgement and feedback deadlines, the 50/250-employee thresholds, multichannel requirements including post and answering machine, outsourced-processing guidance — and the web-form flow adapts to the reporter's jurisdiction, with SAPIN II and PIDA named alongside templates for whistleblowing policies, SOPs and training. The mapping stays at framework level though: I found no named counsel, no documented legal review, and no public information on retention or deletion duties, so this is features-plus-guidance rather than a legal instrument. 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 SME Operator

The anonymity engineering is public and concrete — no tracking cookies, IP addresses or digital footprints collected, metadata stripped from uploads, intake channels separated in a demilitarised zone, on-premise and dedicated-server options, client-key database encryption — and they point to certified info-security and privacy management plus a Trust-Center. But the certificate is unnamed, and I found no public information on penetration tests or a documented encryption architecture for report content, which is what an auditor would demand before signing off on the confidentiality promise. 1 2 8

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 SME Operator

Groups get multiple portals, multi-tenant storage, access rights split by region, division and hierarchy with default-deny permissions, additional hierarchy levels for complex structures, and a groups report that depends on user permissions — enough that a group could run entities with separated handlers and a consolidated view. I found no public information on external ombudsman or counsel roles, delegated administration, or white-label reporting pages, so it stops short of full group architecture. 2 4 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 SME Operator

The captured pages give different figures for where reports live: one says data is stored within the EU in certified data centers, another lists servers in the EU, US, UAE, KSA, India and Tanzania. I found no public information on the vendor's legal entity, ownership, a data processing agreement or a subprocessor list, so for the most sensitive data a company holds the jurisdictional chain cannot be verified from public pages — an on-premise option exists, but as an exception rather than the documented rule. 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 SME Operator

The only public figures I could find are 'from 89 EUR / month' for the toll-free line and the ethics helpdesk, while we found no public prices for the Starter, Advanced and Pro plans themselves, and no information on employee-band boundaries, setup fees or VAT treatment. Unlimited users, cases, procedures and automations is the simple base I want, and no per-report fees appear anywhere, but I still cannot compute the invoice for a 60-employee company from what is published — and the 'from' wording hides what the toll-free line would actually cost me. 2 8 1

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 →