whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Whistleblowing Portals

LegalTegrity

EU-Made Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: 1 of 4 dimensions proven

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

by LegalTegrity GmbH · legaltegrity.com

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

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

The Security Auditor

Weighted verdict

Pentests the anonymity promise for a living. Optimizes for evidenced security: current certificates with visible scope, published pentests, documented end-to-end encryption, metadata minimization, and hosting outside hostile jurisdictional reach. Rejects adjective security and "military-grade" anything.

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

Scored by The Security Auditor

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 Security Auditor

Web intake 24/7 plus telephone on working days, 40+ languages with built-in translation, responsive design, and a properly engineered anonymous dialog: reporter-chosen PIN plus 12-digit Case ID locker and real-time chat, with the vendor claiming the channel itself cannot trace the reporter. Held below 8 because phone intake is office-hours only, no QR entry points are evidenced, and accessibility amounts to one tier-gated read-aloud feature rather than documented WCAG consciousness. 1 2 3

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 Security Auditor

Automated workflow with checklists, deadline management with reminder function, an audit-proof activity log with exports, and responsibilities assignable per business unit, subsidiary and report category — that clears rubric level 5. But the evidence is silent on conflict-of-interest exclusion of implicated handlers and on per-case retention and deletion rules, which are the parts a regulator or external investigator actually needs. 1 2

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 Security Auditor

HinSchG duties are implemented as product features — deadline clocks, case handling documented in a legally compliant manner, the 50-employee threshold and money-laundering obligations spelled out, plus AGG and BSIG — which is a solid one-national-law implementation. No per-country rule sets for the whistleblowing product, no named counsel or documented legal review, and no deletion-after-retention feature anywhere; the 120-jurisdiction legal register belongs to a different product. 1 2 3

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 Security Auditor

'GDPR-compliant & pentested' with no report, no date, no tester and no scope is precisely the adjective security I reject, and the only ISO 27001 in evidence belongs to the Open Telekom Cloud hosting, not to LegalTegrity's own product or ISMS — 'meets the requirements of various ISO certifications' is not a certificate. Credit where due: no IP logging, removal of all metadata and a non-tracking session cookie are explicit and specific, and 'not even LegalTegrity' access is claimed — but with no end-to-end encryption claim and no cryptographic architecture, that assertion is engineered nowhere in this sheet. 1 2 3

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 Security Auditor

Multi-tenancy with responsibilities assignable by business unit, subsidiary and report category, plus an external reporting office (OmbuTegrity) add-on, gets the per-entity case separation started. But the vendor positions itself for medium-sized organisations, and I find no group-level consolidated view, no delegated administration, no per-entity branding or per-country rule assignment — a corporate group cannot be run on this as evidenced. 5 1 2

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 Security Auditor

The residency for whistleblowing reports is clean on its face: German GmbH with a Frankfurt imprint, hosted in Deutsche Telekom's Open Telekom Cloud with named data centres in Magdeburg and Biere. But there is no published DPA and no subprocessor list at all in the evidence, a HubSpot embed sits on the vendor's own web estate, and the sibling DCO product runs in Microsoft's Germany cloud — leaving US CLOUD Act exposure in the chain undocumented, which rubric level 8 will not tolerate. 6 5 1 2 3

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 Security Auditor

Three tiers carry real annual and monthly figures with employee-band boundaries (<50, <250, <1,000) and setup included from Professional upward, so a small company can compute its invoice. But VAT treatment is an unexplained asterisk, the OmbuTegrity external reporting office and training add-ons are unpriced, and Enterprise is quote-only — exactly the anchor-5 pattern of commonly needed capabilities hiding in unpriced extras. 1 2

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

1 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 ⚠ unverified — uncited Report an error
Data residency Not determined ⚠ unverified — uncited Report an error
Subprocessors US CLOUD Act reach ⚠ unverified 0/2 pts 3 Report an error

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 LegalTegrity? 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 Product page incl. pricing/FAQ legaltegrity.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 +2 earlier captures: 11 Sep 2026, 23 Aug 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Pricing page legaltegrity.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 +2 earlier captures: 11 Sep 2026, 23 Aug 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Detailed FAQ legaltegrity.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 +2 earlier captures: 11 Sep 2026, 23 Aug 2026 Details →
  4. 4 About / team legaltegrity.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 15 Sep 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Contact legaltegrity.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 +2 earlier captures: 15 Sep 2026, 23 Aug 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Imprint legaltegrity.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Security / trust page legaltegrity.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Privacy policy legaltegrity.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Reporting channels & reporter experience — found from sitemap legaltegrity.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Reporting channels & reporter experience — found from sitemap legaltegrity.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →