whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Whistleblowing Portals

Reveal

Provenance unknown 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 Whistleblower Security Inc. · www.whistleblowersecurity.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 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

A live-answer hotline staffed around the clock in three languages with interpretation for 150 more, plus web intake with a genuinely engineered anonymity model: strictly anonymous reporters keep a username-only dialog they must check in on manually, and at the middle level the organization is told it will not see the reporter's name or email. Two-way anonymous dialog is core, not bolted on. I found no public information on accessibility or QR-style entry points, which is the one gap keeping this a step below the top of the scale. 1 3 4 6

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 case worker side is a real system: configurable user permissions, restricted manager and investigator assignment, case routing, an audit log, task management, and reporting that goes well beyond a status list. But I found no public information on statutory deadline tracking — no acknowledgment or feedback clocks, no per-case retention or deletion rules, no conflict-of-interest exclusion — and those are exactly the pieces I answer for. On everything shown, the legal clocks would be my problem, not the system's. 5 6 7

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

I found no reference to any statute in the captured pages — not the EU whistleblower directive, not a single national transposition — only marketing language about staying compliant with regulations. The service is built around a North American ethics-hotline model with Canadian agents. As an obligated European company I cannot map even one statutory duty to a product feature from this material. 1 4 5

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

ISO 27001 certification with a documented ISMS, Azure hosting under SOC 2 Type II attestations, TLS in transit and AES-256 transparent data encryption with the database even named — that is engineered, not adjectives. But I found no public information on penetration tests, on IP or metadata logging, or on end-to-end encryption of report content, and no security contact or disclosure policy. The confidentiality promise rests on certificates and encryption, not on audited anonymity. 5 7

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

A subsidiaries configuration lets the reporter choose which legal entity or division a report concerns and feeds report routing, and user permissions are configurable per handler. But I found no public information on entity-separated case access, a group-level consolidated view that respects entity boundaries, delegated administration per entity, or external ombudsman and counsel access. The group capability shown here reads as intake routing rather than multi-tenant architecture. 6 8

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

Reports live by default in Canadian Azure data centres — primary and geo-replicated backup both in Canada — in a service run by a Case IQ company with agents in Canada. I found no public information on a European hosting option, a data processing agreement, or a subprocessor list. Nothing in this chain is European, and for the most sensitive data a company holds, that is disqualifying for me. 4 5 7

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

The only pricing statement captured is an all-inclusive service at 'a price you can afford' — an invitation to a sales conversation. I found no tier prices, employee bands, billing periods or renewal rules in the captured pages, so a 600-employee company cannot compute even a rough invoice from public material. 4

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 — 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 Reveal? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (8)

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

  1. 1 Vendor page www.whistleblowersecurity.com Checked 29 Sep 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Privacy policy — found from the homepage www.whistleblowersecurity.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Reporting channels & reporter experience — found from sitemap help.whistleblowersecurity.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Reporting channels & reporter experience — found from sitemap www.whistleblowersecurity.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Case management & deadline discipline — found from sitemap www.whistleblowersecurity.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Case management & deadline discipline — found from sitemap www.whistleblowersecurity.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Security & anonymity assurance — found from sitemap www.whistleblowersecurity.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Group & multi-entity capability — found from sitemap help.whistleblowersecurity.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →