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 Skeptic

Weighted verdict

Assumes "audit-proof" and "100% anonymous" are marketing until the evidence says otherwise. Hunts certification claims without certificates, anonymity claims next to analytics scripts, per-report pricing traps and legal-update promises with no named lawyer. Exists to keep the rest of the bench honest.

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

Scored by The Skeptic

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 Skeptic

Anonymous web form, QR entry, in-browser voice messages per § 16 Abs. 3 HinSchG, secured two-way dialog via Melde-ID/password that works even fully anonymously, 26 languages, no install, and an explicit no-access-logs statement — that is rubric level 8 nearly line by line. It stays below 9 because WCAG 2.1 AA is only a self-assessment hedged as 'weitgehend kompatibel', not verified. 14 2 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 Skeptic

Automated statutory clocks (7-day/3-month) per organisation with visible deadlines, immutable messages and an admin-only, tamper-evident activity log with configurable retention, three-tier role separation and per-case deletion scheduling clear the 5-anchor comfortably. But there is not one word on conflict-of-interest handling — excluding an implicated case handler is a HinSchG basic, and deadline reminders are implied rather than evidenced, so it cannot reach 8. 2 7 14 8

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 Skeptic

The HinSchG duties are real product features, not brochure text: automatic 7-day/3-month clocks, § 16 Abs. 3 voice intake, automatic acknowledgment, per-case deletion — that is exactly rubric level 5 for one national law. No evidence of any second transposition, no per-country rule sets, no named counsel or documented legal review behind the 1,200+ templates; 'HinSchG-konform entwickelt und betrieben' is an unaudited vendor assertion and the update promise ('DSGVO-Updates werden zeitnah umgesetzt') has no lawyer's name on it. 14 2 1 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 Skeptic

Credit where due: they admit plainly 'Aktuell keine eigene ISO 27001 Zertifizierung' — only the Hetzner datacenters are certified — and the no-logs pledge ('Keine Logs, die Rückschlüsse auf Hinweisgebende ermöglichen') is specific, with 2FA and AES-256 backups on top. But that is where it ends: no vendor ISMS, no penetration test ever mentioned, no security contact or disclosure policy, TLS+AES-at-rest instead of any end-to-end claim — and an optional OpenAI integration that would ship report content to a US model, off by default or not. That is a 3-anchor lifted one notch by honesty, not an 8. 14 2 9 1

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 Skeptic

Genuine multi-tenancy is documented: per-entity channels with strict data separation, per-tenant languages, modules and whitelabel branding, ombudsperson and per-report role scoping, hundreds of Mandanten manageable from one login in under 3 minutes. Missing for an 8-to-10: group-level consolidated reporting that respects entity boundaries is only implied by XLSX exports, delegated per-entity administration is not spelled out, and there is no per-country legal rule assignment whatsoever. 12 1 2 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 Skeptic

German GmbH in Ulm with HRB number, German law and venue, Hetzner-only hosting in named German datacenters (Nürnberg/Falkenstein), a public DPA with TOMs, audit rights and EU subprocessors (Hetzner, UpCloud-Finland), plus an on-premises option — most of rubric level 8 is evidenced. Two things hold it back: an opt-in OpenAI (US) integration touches report content and appears nowhere in the published subprocessor list, and ownership/jurisdiction are flagged unknown in the evidence — a GmbH & Co. KG versus GmbH naming discrepancy I do not reward. 3 9 10 14 2

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 Skeptic

The spec states outright: 'Das Lizenzierungs- und Preismodell wird als separates, individuelles Angebot erstellt' — pricing factors are named (entities, employees, hosting variant, license model) but no tier, band or amount is public anywhere in the evidence. Premium support has a FAQ question about its cost with no captured answer; the contract mechanics are clean (no setup fees, VAT excluded, 30-day price-increase notice) but an obligated company cannot compute a single euro from public pages. 14 5 6

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 →