whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Whistleblowing Portals

preeco | hinweisgeberschutz

EU-Made 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 preeco GmbH & Co. KG · www.preeco.de

Compare with EQS Integrity Line → 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 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

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

The frightened reporter is actually served here: fully anonymous submission with two-way dialog via a protected Melde-ID/password area that works even for anonymous reports, in-browser voice messages grounded in § 16 Abs. 3 HinSchG without a phone connection, and QR-code entry, with up to 26 languages plus AI translation reviewed by the team. Accessibility is self-assessed WCAG 2.1 AA / EN 301 549 ('weitgehend kompatibel') rather than audited, and the no-access-logs promise is a single line — good, but not the documented anonymity engineering of the top anchor. 2 14 11 13

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 statutory clocks are the product's, not mine: automatic 7-day/3-month monitoring with automatic Fristsetzung per organization, due dates shown in the case list, and reminders; reporter messages and system entries cannot be edited or deleted, and the admin-only activity log records every change with old/new value, timestamp and actor — documentation that would survive a regulator. Deletion is scheduled per case after closure, but there is not one word on conflict-of-interest handling or excluding implicated case handlers, which is why it stops short of the top anchors. 2 7 14 1

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 HinSchG is implemented as features, not marketing: automated deadline management, automatic acknowledgment 'gemäß HinSchG', a voice channel citing § 16 Abs. 3 HinSchG specifically, and configurable post-case deletion. But that is exactly one national law — no reference to Directive 2019/1937, no second transposition, no named counsel or documented legal review — so the single-law anchor is where it lands. 14 2 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

Two of the three mid-anchor elements are there: ISO 27001 (Hetzner data centers, Germany) and an explicit statement that no logs allow inferences about reporters, plus enforceable team-wide TOTP 2FA. But preeco itself admits it holds no ISO 27001 certification, encryption is TLS plus AES-at-rest for essential data — not end-to-end, with no architecture documentation — and there is no pentest attestation and no disclosure policy; I could not answer a hostile auditor with this file. 14 2 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

This is a real Mandant architecture, not N instances in a trenchcoat: per-entity settings, users and strict data separation with one-click central switching, per-organization deadlines, notifications and languages, ombudsperson and Sachbearbeiter roles scoped per organization with assignment-only visibility, whitelabel branding and own domain from Private Cloud, and a claim of hundreds of Mandanten managed centrally with new ones in under three minutes. What is missing for the top is per-country legal rule assignment per entity and a true consolidated group-level statistics view. 12 2 1 7

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

The default chain is jurisdictionally clean: German GmbH in Ulm under German law, hosting exclusively in named Hetzner data centers in Nürnberg/Falkenstein, storage location Germany, no third-country transfer, and a published AVV listing only EU subprocessors (Hetzner DE, UpCloud FI) with downloadable TOMs. On-premises exists but is restricted to the public sector and Enterprise segment, and the optional AI endpoints can point at OpenAI — opt-in and default-off, but it means the clean chain is a configuration choice, not an architecture guarantee. 9 10 14 5

Report an error

Pricing transparency not rated — the vendor publishes no price

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

'Das Lizenzierungs- und Preismodell wird als separates, individuelles Angebot erstellt' — there is not one public number in the entire sheet, so no obligated company can compute anything; the pricing factors (Mandanten, headcount, hosting variant) tell me the axes of the invoice but never the amounts. The published contract mechanics — no setup fees, no cancellation period, VAT excluded, monthly or annual billing — are the only thing keeping this off an absolute zero. 14 5

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 ⚠ unverified — uncited Report an error
Subprocessors Not determined ⚠ unverified — uncited 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 preeco | hinweisgeberschutz? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (23)

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

  1. 1 Vendor homepage www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 +3 earlier captures: 15 Sep 2026, 11 Sep 2026, 24 Aug 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Product page www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 +4 earlier captures: 16 Sep 2026, 11 Sep 2026, 24 Aug 2026, 23 Aug 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Imprint www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Privacy policy www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Terms www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Product documentation library www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 +2 earlier captures: 15 Sep 2026, 24 Aug 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Deadline automation doc www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 +3 earlier captures: 11 Sep 2026, 24 Aug 2026, 24 Aug 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Notification routing doc www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 +2 earlier captures: 24 Aug 2026, 24 Aug 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Hosting variants page www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 16 Sep 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Published DPA (AVV) for cloud customers www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  11. 11 Accessibility statement www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  12. 12 Multi-entity use case page www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  13. 13 Multilingualism use case page www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  14. 14 Full product specification (Leistungsbeschreibung) www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 16 Sep 2026 Details →
  15. 15 Reporting channels & reporter experience — found from sitemap www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  16. 16 Reporting channels & reporter experience — found from sitemap www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  17. 17 Case management & deadline discipline — found from sitemap www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  18. 18 Case management & deadline discipline — found from sitemap www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  19. 19 Legal compliance alignment — found from sitemap www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  20. 20 Security & anonymity assurance — found from sitemap www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  21. 21 Security & anonymity assurance — found from sitemap www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  22. 22 Group & multi-entity capability — found from sitemap www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  23. 23 Group & multi-entity capability — found from sitemap www.preeco.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →