Whistleblowing Portals
otris Hinweisgebersystem
EU-Made Report an errorPanel 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 otris software AG · www.otris.de
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 panel's verdict
otris Hinweisgebersystem is the whistleblowing module of the otris COMPLIANCE SUITE from otris software AG, Dortmund (Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB15040, founded 1998). Its strongest axis is sovereignty: a German AG running its cloud on servers of its own subsidiary otris systems GmbH in Oldenburg, with an on-premises option and AI processing via Microsoft Azure OpenAI in a Sweden datacenter. Its weakest are group & multi-entity capability, where the evidence is silent on per-entity channels, delegated administration and group oversight, and legal compliance alignment, flat at 3, where EU Directive 2019/1937 appears only in generic wiki prose with no mapping to product features. Case management draws 4-5 on automated deadline warnings; reporting channels and security assurance sit at a flat 4 on the password-and-ID anonymous mailbox and ISO 27001 for the Oldenburg subsidiary, tempered by no published product DPA and analytics trackers on the vendor's own site. The 0-2 spread on group & multi-entity capability reflects how hard judges scored silence, not a dispute over evidence. Persona-weighted totals span 3.6-4.1; no prices appear, with quotes routed to vertrieb@otris.de.
Speaks for it
- sovereignty scores 5-7 for a German AG in Dortmund operating its cloud on servers of its own subsidiary otris systems GmbH in Oldenburg, with an on-premises option
- ISO 27001 certification held by otris systems GmbH, the subsidiary that runs the cloud
- anonymous mailbox protected by password and ID for follow-up dialog, on a platform the vendor operates so the recipient gets no access to user data
- workflows, templates and automated monitoring warning of upcoming processing deadlines (case management & deadline discipline 4-5)
- AI runs on Microsoft Azure OpenAI in a Sweden datacenter (EWR) with no data used for training
Held against it
- no evidence of per-entity channels, delegated administration or group-level oversight (group & multi-entity capability 0-2)
- EU Directive 2019/1937 appears only in generic wiki prose, with no mapping of clocks or retention periods to product features (legal compliance alignment flat at 3)
- no product DPA, TOMs or subprocessor list published for the reporting platform itself
- end-to-end encryption is asserted in a single sentence with no architecture, pentest or IP/metadata-logging statement
- the vendor's own website runs Google Analytics 4 (14-month retention), a LinkedIn tracker and Cloudflare Inc. of San Francisco
Best for
- You need a European-anchored channel for sensitive reports: a German legal entity, cloud on the vendor's own Oldenburg servers, and an on-premises option
- You operate a single company and mainly need two-way anonymous dialog plus automated deadline warnings
- You prefer the reporting platform to be operated by the software vendor so the recipient company gets no access to user data
Avoid if
- You are rolling out channels across many subsidiaries or countries — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You expect the product to enforce statutory acknowledgment/feedback clocks or map the HinSchG — EU Directive 2019/1937 appears only as explainer text (legal compliance alignment flat at 3)
- You require a published product DPA, TOMs or subprocessor list for the reporting platform before signing — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- Your reporters need multilingual, mobile or accessible intake — the evidence is silent on all three, and phone intake appears only as an alternative to software
The scores
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
The only reporter-facing capability on record is the anonymous mailbox secured by password and ID for follow-up dialog (E8) — that meets the two-way-mailbox bar, but the quote describes whistleblowing software generically, not otris's product specifically. Nothing on languages, mobile, accessibility, or voice intake — phone and ombudsperson appear only as alternatives TO software (E8), so I cannot credit a real intake channel. 6 2
The Reporter's Advocate
An anonymous postfach protected by password and ID gives the reporter a two-way dialog with no account, and the vendor-operated platform keeps the recipient off the reporter's data — that much survives first contact. But the evidence is silent on languages, mobile-friendliness and accessibility, and the telephone hotline shows up only as an alternative to using software at all — for a night-shift worker on a phone with no German, I cannot say this system is built for them. 6
The SME Operator
The anonymous mailbox protected by password and ID gives me the two-way anonymous dialog the law requires, but the evidence is silent on languages, mobile and accessibility — and phone hotline and ombudsperson are framed as alternatives to the software, not channels in it. That clears rubric level 3 but cannot reach 5 without the language and mobile evidence. 2 6
The Group Counsel
An anonymous password-and-ID protected mailbox for follow-up dialog is the one evidenced capability, but the evidence is largely generic wiki education rather than product documentation. Phone intake appears only as an 'alternative system' to software, and languages, mobile-friendliness and accessibility are wholly unevidenced — so it sits between the anonymous-form and full two-way anchors. 6
The Security Auditor
A protected anonymous mailbox (password + ID) for follow-up dialog is described, but in category prose, not a product spec. Voice intake appears only as an external alternative a company could establish itself, and the evidence is silent on languages, mobile use, QR entry and accessibility — the evidence tops out between rubric level 3 and 5. 2 6
The Skeptic
An anonymous mailbox protected by password and ID for follow-up dialog is described, but the whole intake story lives in generic wiki prose about what 'whistleblowing software systems' do — no language coverage, no accessibility, no mobile evidence, and the telephone/ombudsman mentions are explicitly listed as alternatives to software, not product channels. Two-way anonymity is claimed; everything that would make it first-class is silent. 6 2
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
Automated monitoring warning of upcoming Bearbeitungsfristen plus standardized workflows and templates (E8, E1) clears the reminders bar — better than manual deadlines. But no evidence the statutory 7-day acknowledgment and 3-month feedback clocks are enforced as such, no role separation or conflict-of-interest exclusion, no tamper-evident history, and no caseload reporting; a generic deadline warning does not answer for missed statutory clocks. 6 1
The Reporter's Advocate
Automated monitoring that warns of anstehenden Bearbeitungsfristen, workflows and templates for strukturiert und fristgerecht processing are claimed — real deadline discipline, above the manual-spreadsheet floor. But there is not one word on role separation, conflict-of-interest exclusion, audit-proof history or the 7-day/3-month clocks specifically, and the claims sit in generic category prose rather than product documentation. 6
The SME Operator
Workflows, templates and automated warnings before processing deadlines are claimed, which is the statutory clock I would otherwise track by hand. But role separation, audit-proof history, retention automation and caseload reporting are all unevidenced, so it lands below the anchor where those appear. 6
The Group Counsel
Structured, fristgerecht case management with workflows, templates and automated deadline-warning monitoring is claimed, which meets the statutory-reminder bar. But nothing evidences tamper-evident history, conflict-of-interest exclusion of implicated handlers, per-case retention automation or caseload reporting. 6
The Security Auditor
Case-management with deadline-compliant processing, workflows, templates and automated deadline warnings is described — but again as explainer text, with nothing on role separation, conflict-of-interest exclusion, tamper-evident history or retention automation. The only permission evidence is a pre-sales consideration question about hooking the system to central user management. 1 6
The Skeptic
All case-management evidence is explainer text — 'structured, deadline-compliant processing', workflows, templates and automated deadline warnings — with nothing on statutory clocks (7-day/3-month), role separation, conflict-of-interest exclusion, tamper-evident history or retention rules. Automated deadline monitoring lifts it above a manual spreadsheet, but not one of these features is documented as an otris capability with any depth. 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 Directive 2019/1937 is invoked in wiki marketing with the end-of-2021 deadline (E8), but there is no mapping to the HinSchG or any transposition, no implemented acknowledgment/feedback clocks, no retention-and-deletion automation, no named counsel. The directive is a talking point here, not a feature set. 6
The Reporter's Advocate
EU Directive 2019/1937 is invoked, but only explained as law the customer must obey — no mapping of acknowledgment/feedback clocks, documentation duties or retention periods to product features, and no HinSchG or per-country detail anywhere in the evidence. That is the anchor-3 pattern: invoked in marketing, implementation is the customer's problem. 6
The SME Operator
Directive 2019/1937 shows up only in an educational wiki explainer, and the German-market orientation of the suite (Hinweisgebersystem, Rechtskataster) does not map the 7-day acknowledgment, 3-month feedback or retention periods to product features. The directive is invoked, not implemented-and-documented — the legal homework stays mine. 1 6
The Group Counsel
Directive 2019/1937 is invoked as a generic wiki explanation with the 2021 deadline, not as implemented rule sets; there is no HinSchG mapping, no per-country transposition support and no documented legal review. For a roll-out across a dozen countries the legal configuration would be entirely the customer's own work, and the suite's Rechtskataster is not shown to feed the whistleblowing module. 6 1
The Security Auditor
Directive 2019/1937 appears once, in marketing-style explainer text about why companies need channels at all, with a 2021 deadline note — invocation without mapping. No HinSchG or any transposition's acknowledgment/feedback clocks, documentation duties or retention periods surface as product features; that is the anchor where deadlines and retention remain the customer's problem. 6
The Skeptic
EU Directive 2019/1937 is invoked in the wiki as the reason to buy — one sentence about the 2021 deadline — with no mapping to product features, no HinSchG or any other national transposition, no legal templates, and no named counsel or update commitment behind the content. That is the directive-as-marketing anchor almost verbatim. 6 1
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
ISO 27001 for the hosting entity otris systems GmbH in Oldenburg (E3) is a real certificate and lifts this above assertion-level. But end-to-end encryption is a single generic sentence with no technical detail (E8), there is no pentest, no no-IP-logging statement for the reporting channel, and the vendor's own site runs Google Analytics with 14-month retention and LinkedIn tracking (E5) — weak metadata discipline to show a regulator. 3 6 5
The Reporter's Advocate
ISO 27001 for the cloud-operating subsidiary in Oldenburg is real, and vendor-side operation structurally keeps the recipient away from reporter data. But end-to-end encryption is one sentence of adjectives with no architecture behind it, there is no pentest, no IP/metadata statement for the reporting platform itself, and nobody answers the only question that matters: could the operator unmask a reporter? 3 6 5
The SME Operator
ISO 27001 for otris systems GmbH, the Oldenburg subsidiary that runs the cloud, is real certification, and end-to-end encryption is asserted — but with no technical architecture, no pentest, no no-IP-logging statement, and the site's cookie stack (GA4, LinkedIn, Cloudflare) unaddressed for the reporting platform, I cannot present this as anchor-5 assurance. 3 5 6
The Group Counsel
ISO 27001 for the Oldenburg hosting subsidiary and the vendor-operated platform keeping the recipient away from user data are genuine positives. But end-to-end encryption is a single adjective-laden sentence with no architecture, and there are no penetration tests, no metadata statement and no no-IP-logging declaration — only the DPAs and SCCs for the marketing website's Cloudflare. 3 6 5
The Security Auditor
The single hard fact: otris systems GmbH in Oldenburg, the subsidiary operating the cloud, is ISO 27001 certified — but no scope, dates or certificate are shown. 'Secure systems guarantee end-to-end encryption' is exactly the adjective security I reject — no architecture, no pentest, no security contact, no metadata or IP-logging statement; the only privacy document captured documents GA4 and LinkedIn trackers on the vendor's own site. 3 5 6
The Skeptic
ISO 27001 is asserted in an FAQ for the operating subsidiary otris systems GmbH — no certificate, scope or certifier shown — and 'end-to-end encryption' is one generic sentence with zero architecture detail, plus no pentests and no statement on IP/metadata logging. Worse, the vendor's own site runs Google Analytics with 14-month retention, a LinkedIn tracker and US Cloudflare in front: exactly the anonymity-claims-next-to-analytics pattern I exist to flag. 3 6 5
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-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 evidence is entirely silent on per-entity channels, entity-scoped case access, group dashboards, white-labeling, and ombudsman roles — ombudsperson and hotline appear only as alternatives to software (E8), and the suite's Konzerndatenschutz is a different module (E1). Missing evidence is information: a group cannot buy multi-entity capability these pages never claim. 1 6
The Reporter's Advocate
Complete silence: no per-entity channels, no separated case access, no group overview, no white-labeling — and the Ombudsperson appears only as an alternative to installing whistleblowing software at all, not as a role the product supports. Missing evidence is information here, and the anchors put absence at the floor. 6 1
The SME Operator
Nothing evidences per-entity channels, separated case access or a group overview for the Hinweisgebersystem; the ombudsperson is explicitly an alternative to the software and group-oriented modules like Konzerndatenschutz live in a different suite. For my single entity this is moot, but scored on evidence it sits near the bottom anchor. 1 6
The Group Counsel
The evidence is completely silent on per-entity channels, separated case access per entity, delegated administration and consolidated group reporting — silence that is itself information, and disqualifying for a 25-subsidiary roll-out. The only ombudsperson mention is as an alternative to software, and 'Konzerndatenschutz' belongs to a different suite, so this is barely above one-company-one-channel. 6 1 3
The Security Auditor
The evidence is silent on per-entity channels, delegated administration, group oversight, branding and ombudsman access for the whistleblowing module; an ombudsperson appears only as an alternative to software. The lone group-flavoured item, 'Konzerndatenschutz', belongs to a different suite. Missing evidence is information: near the bottom. 1 6
The Skeptic
The evidence is silent on everything this criterion needs: no per-entity channels, no delegated administration, no group-level oversight, no external ombudsman role in the product — the ombudsperson mention is a list of alternatives to using software at all, and 'Konzerndatenschutz' and 'Beteiligungsmanagement' are unrelated suite modules. Unevidenced capability is absent capability; a corporate group buys blind here. 1 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
German AG in Dortmund (HRB, Amtsgericht Dortmund) with cloud operation on named servers of otris systems GmbH in Oldenburg plus an on-premises option (E1, E3, E4) is the right architecture for this data. But the AI copilot routes content through Microsoft Azure OpenAI — Sweden datacenter, yet a US-parent processor within CLOUD Act reach — and there is no published product DPA/TOMs, with Cloudflare Inc. (San Francisco) on the CDN path under SCCs (E5); that keeps it below the clean-chain anchors. 1 3 4 5
The Reporter's Advocate
A German AG in Dortmund running its cloud on its own subsidiary's servers in Oldenburg, with an on-premises option, is a genuinely European chain. It caps below the top: the copilot's LLM runs on Microsoft Azure OpenAI — EWR-hosted in Sweden, but a US-reachable parent — and the vendor's own web presence leans on Cloudflare (San Francisco), Google Analytics and LinkedIn, while no product DPA or TOMs are published. 3 1 4 5
The SME Operator
A Dortmund AG running its cloud on its own Oldenburg subsidiary's servers, with an on-premises option and AI confined to a Swedish EWR datacenter with no training on data, is the posture I want for the most sensitive data we hold. It falls short of the top anchors because no product DPA, subprocessor list or TOMs are published, and US-reach processors (Cloudflare, Calendly, Microsoft) are documented around it. 1 3 5
The Group Counsel
A Dortmund AG operating its SaaS on its own Oldenburg subsidiary's servers in Germany, with on-premises as a first-class option and AI processing pinned to Sweden/EWR — that is a genuinely European chain, and the strongest part of this sheet. It falls short of the top anchors because no public DPA, TOMs or subprocessor list for the reporting service itself is evidenced; the documented DPAs cover the vendor's marketing website. 4 3 1 5
The Security Auditor
Entity and hosting are clean: German AG in Dortmund, cloud operated by subsidiary otris systems GmbH on Oldenburg servers, SaaS (DE) plus on-premises. But no product DPA, TOMs or subprocessor list for the reporting platform is published, and the vendor's own web chain runs through Cloudflare Inc. (San Francisco), Google Analytics and Calendly under US transfer mechanisms — jurisdictionally clean at the core, undocumented at the edges. 1 3 4 5
The Skeptic
Despite the 'unknown' flags in the provenance block, the registry itself confirms a German AG in Dortmund with a Dortmund register entry, cloud operation on the subsidiary's own servers in Oldenburg, and an on-prem option — a genuinely European core. It stays below the top anchors because there is no public product DPA or TOMs, the AI path runs through Microsoft Azure OpenAI (US parent, Sweden datacenter), and the vendor's web estate fronts US processors like Cloudflare and Google, leaving the product-level subprocessor chain undocumented. 4 3 1 5
Pricing transparency
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
Not a single price, tier, employee band, or setup fee appears anywhere in the captured pages — the only route to an invoice is vertrieb@otris.de (E3). For a 600-employee obligated company, the real cost of this system is undiscoverable from public pages, which is exactly the anchor-zero situation. 1 3
The Reporter's Advocate
Not one public price in the entire sheet — no tiers, no bands, no setup fees; the contact route is vertrieb@otris.de. Every invoice is a sales conversation, which is the anchor-0 case exactly. 3 1
The SME Operator
Not a single price, tier or employee band appears anywhere in the captured pages; the only buying signal is a sales phone number and vertrieb@ email. An enterprise suite where every tier is a sales conversation is precisely the invoice I cannot defend at year-end. 1 3
The Group Counsel
Not a single price, tier, employee band or setup fee appears anywhere in the captured pages. Every quotation is a sales conversation via vertrieb@otris.de, so no obligated company could compute its invoice from public pages. 1 6 3
The Security Auditor
Not a single price, tier, employee band, add-on or setup fee appears anywhere in the captured evidence — everything routes to vertrieb@otris.de. An obligated company cannot compute any invoice from these pages; that is rubric level 0 by definition. 1 2 3
European sovereignty — proven facts
1 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 | Incorporated in DE | 3/3 pts | 4 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 23 Aug 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency, 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.
- We could not confirm any pricing information on the vendor’s own pages as captured, so this page shows none rather than a statement we cannot stand behind. Know more? Tell us
- 28 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 support 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
- 12 legal 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
- 4 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
- 1 data 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 hosting 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 integrations 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
- 2 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are 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 (16)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.otris.de Checked 15 Sep 2026 +1 earlier capture: 23 Aug 2026 Details →
- 2 Hinweisgebersystem explainer www.otris.de Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Vendor facts page www.otris.de Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Imprint www.otris.de Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Privacy policy www.otris.de Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 6 Whistleblowing wiki/product page www.otris.de Checked 15 Sep 2026 +1 earlier capture: 11 Sep 2026 Details →
- 7 Security / trust page — found from the homepage www.otris.de Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 8 Reporting channels & reporter experience — found from sitemap www.otris.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Reporting channels & reporter experience — found from sitemap www.otris.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Case management & deadline discipline — found from sitemap www.otris.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Legal compliance alignment — found from sitemap www.otris.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Legal compliance alignment — found from sitemap www.otris.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Security & anonymity assurance — found from sitemap www.otris.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 Security & anonymity assurance — found from sitemap www.otris.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 15 Group & multi-entity capability — found from sitemap www.otris.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 16 Group & multi-entity capability — found from sitemap www.otris.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →