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

An AI-assisted analysis of public evidence — not a hands-on test.

Every score, rationale and verdict on this page is AI-generated. Every claim cites the source it was read from. Nothing here is a human star review — and no score can be bought. How scores are made →

Method and versions

The Compliance Officer v1.0 · The Reporter's Advocate v1.0 · The SME Operator v1.2 · The Group Counsel v1.0 · The Security Auditor v1.0 · The Skeptic v1.2 · rubric v1 · evaluated 16 Sep 2026

Independence note: whats-best.ai is operated by nelo digitalagentur GmbH & Co. KG. A company connected to the operator builds preeco | hinweisgeberschutz. They are evaluated exactly like every other product — same rubric, same bench, same published method, same publish gate — and nobody at those companies sees or influences the panel’s work before it is published. No score, rank or placement is for sale, here or anywhere on this site. Conflicts of interest

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 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 form with fully anonymous mode, QR-code entry, in-browser voice messages per §16 Abs. 3 HinSchG that work even anonymously, and two-way dialog via a protected area with Melde-ID and password — the anonymous dialog is first-class, not bolted on. 26 languages with optional DeepL translation and no install required round it out. Held below the top anchor because accessibility is only a self-assessed 'weitgehend kompatibel' with WCAG 2.1 AA and the 'no logs enabling conclusions about whistleblowers' claim is a one-line marketing statement, not documented engineering of how identity stays out of the channel. 2 14 11 1

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 statutory clocks per organization (7-day/3-month) with reminders, immutable reporter messages, a tamper-evident activity log recording old and new values with actor and timestamp, and configurable GDPR deletion scheduling after case closure are all evidenced. rubric level 8's conflict-of-interest handling — excluding implicated case handlers — appears nowhere in the evidence, and management reporting is XLSX exports plus a dashboard, so 7. 2 7 14

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: automatic deadline setting tied to the three-month rule, automatic acknowledgment, and voice intake citing §16(3) — one national law done properly, which is the anchor-5 definition. No mention of EU Directive 2019/1937 or any other national transposition, no named counsel, no documented legal review, and updates when the law moves is only asserted for other modules (NIS2/DORA). 14 7 2

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

The vendor states it holds no own ISO 27001 — the certificate covers only the Hetzner datacenters — and no penetration test is published anywhere in the registry; encryption is SSL/TLS plus AES on 'essential' database fields, meaning the operator can read report content, and no end-to-end architecture is documented. Credit for the explicit 'no logs that enable conclusions about whistleblowers' statement, team-enforceable TOTP 2FA with brute-force protection, and an AI path that by default never transmits reporter identity and deletes content in 7 days — enough to lift it just above unaudited adjectives. 14 9 2

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

Per-tenant channels with strict data separation and own users, per-organization branding with own domain from Private Cloud, central administration with one-click tenant switching, a dedicated ombudsperson role, and documentation that external DPOs and ombudspersons manage hundreds of Mandanten centrally. Missing only the anchor-10 items: per-country legal rule assignment per entity, and white-label/own domain is withheld below the Private Cloud tier. 12 2 1 14

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

German GmbH in Ulm under German law with venue Ulm, hosting exclusively at named Hetzner datacenters in Nuremberg/Falkenstein with offsite backup in Falkenstein, and a public Art. 28 DPA naming subprocessors Hetzner (DE) and UpCloud (FI, monitoring only) plus downloadable TOMs. Ownership is undocumented, the AGB only vaguely reference 'von preeco genutzte Rechenzentren' while the Germany-only statements live in the product spec and privacy policy, and optional US AI endpoints (off by default) are the one content-touching wrinkle — 8, not 10. 3 9 10 14 4

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 Security Auditor

'Das Lizenzierungs- und Preismodell wird als separates, individuelles Angebot erstellt' — no public price for any tier, so an obligated company cannot compute anything; this is the anchor-0 situation of every tier being a sales conversation. The pricing dimensions (organizations, employee count, hosting variant, license model), no-setup-fee claim, billing periods and VAT treatment are at least disclosed, which is the only thing lifting it above 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.

Legal entity	Not determined ⚠ unverified	—	uncited 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, Legal entity. 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.

127 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
40 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
37 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
32 hosting 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
32 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
12 integrations 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 pricing 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 subprocessors 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
3 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

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